CEAW 2 wishlist

[borsook79]

While CEAW is a very good game, there is a undoubtedly room for improvement. Even more, I think that given some changes this could be one of those games that one could play over and over for years. While we have been given ample support via patches, obviously there are things that require a more complex modification - i.e. either an expansion or a sequel. Although I have no idea whether or not the devs are willing to consider such a thing, I think a good start would be saying what we would like to be changed/added. To start things off here's my personal wishlist:

1. Better strategic AI - this could not be stressed enough, currently this is the biggest problem with CEAW, it's great in MP, but a bit disappointing in SP, and still in this genre SP players are a majority.
2. Fuller weather implementation - weather should not be limited just to Russia and should also affect Air units, currently things like Ardennes offensive of '44 are impossible to recreate in the game.
3. Two types of naval transports - one allowing unloading only in friendly ports, other much more expensive allow attacking enemy coast line, including occupied hexes (i.e. entering the hex if enemy unit has been forced to retreat).
4. Greater modability - in particular implementing some sort of a scripting language that would allow for text popups (like historical events), scripting diplomatic events (DOWs on a given condition) plus limited AI scripting, in particular scrpting invasions. Plus ability to add more unit types would allow modders to create a lower scale scenarios.
5. Performance improvements - I have little experience in Java programming, so cannot say how big the improvements can be made without changing the language, but there is nothing in CEAW that could not be done with RAM requirement cut in half.
6. More unit types - in particular paratroopers and cavalry come to mind, this would not be a crucial change but it would add to "flavour" greatly.
7. Optional "undo" feature - being toggleable in options (and probably set to off by default) it should please both sides of the argument.
8. Some sort of internal save compression - there are free to use algorithms out there, and even those less effective allow to lower CEAW save size by 94%! It does make a difference with PBEM games.
9. Last Turn replay for PBEM games - the current arrow system often makes it hard to decipher the exact loses suffered, which unit attacked which etc etc.
10 Multiple screen resolutions - this should be fairly simple to implement, the biggest issue being reworking UI files. This should include also some wide screen resolutions.

EDIT>lots of typos

[syagrius]

Also the next game shouldnt be WW II in Europe as it is now, its done. Another war or map is needed to make the series grow. Most of the changes you suggested could be easily added in a patch or an expansion.

[firepowerjohan]

A nice list and all of them are certainly things that are likely to improve sooner or later, they have different priorities so some of them are already made but some of them are more for the far future of the series

[borsook79]

A nice list and all of them are certainly things that are likely to improve sooner or later, they have different priorities so some of them are already made but some of them are more for the far future of the series

Good to hear Johan, I just hope you will revisit European WW2 at some point - as the success of 2 SC2 expansions show, there is still quite a number of people who, like me, do not feel bored with this theatre.

[AlvaroSousa]

I have the game and think its well written and has a very nice graphical interface. Easy to play. Thats a big +. Oil and Manpower rules I love.

The modablility of the game allows you to change just about anything. Not sure if it allows combat results change I dont remember. I have been a long time wargamer, used to program, and I read a lot of books on WW2 history. So I will toss in my suggestions.

Strategic AI: Brosock pointed it out exactly. You should set goals for the AI. There is a simple rule in strategic thinking. Pick an objective and throw everything you have at it. Set goals for the AI and have the AI build for those goals. Lets take the PC playing Germany.

Strategic goals.
1. All out vs Russia, ignore England, very little sub building but just enough to keep England Busy.
2. Russia 1941, keep England at bay (heavy atlantic battle with subs)
3. Russia 1942 from eastern front and Turkish border, Med strategy 1941 to protect Italy (except gibralter)
4. Russia 1942, Take Gibralter and Egypt 1941
5. Russia 1941 winter attack + med strategy (assumes Germany took out France fast)
6. Sealion, Russia 1943 (to take territory and delay Russia from crushing them close to border 1944.
7. Sitzkrieg, this is where Germany takes out Gibralter, all the med and attacks Russia in 1943 just to take borders so it takes a looooong time for the allies to take it back. Very boring but effective for axis to win on VPs.

basically randomly pick a strategy each game and build for it and take the objectives one at a time.

Weather definitely, has to be more apparent in this game

Naval:
Carriers should have a seperate air component.
Personally I like fleet markers but its not for the scale of this game.
Convoys: This is tougher. I would say simply assign destroyers to convoy routes instead of having players shlep their ships across the ocean each time a convoy comes.

Supply

[AlvaroSousa]

I have the game and think its well written and has a very nice graphical interface. Easy to play. Thats a big +. Oil and Manpower rules I love.

The modablility of the game allows you to change just about anything. Not sure if it allows combat results change I dont remember. I have been a long time wargamer, used to program, and I read a lot of books on WW2 history. So I will toss in my suggestions.

Strategic AI: Brosock pointed it out exactly. You should set goals for the AI. There is a simple rule in strategic thinking. Pick an objective and throw everything you have at it. Set goals for the AI and have the AI build for those goals. Lets take the PC playing Germany.

Strategic goals.
1. All out vs Russia, ignore England, very little sub building but just enough to keep England Busy.
2. Russia 1941, keep England at bay (heavy atlantic battle with subs)
3. Russia 1942 from eastern front and Turkish border, Med strategy 1941 to protect Italy (except gibralter)
4. Russia 1942, Take Gibralter and Egypt 1941
5. Russia 1941 winter attack + med strategy (assumes Germany took out France fast)
6. Sealion, Russia 1943 (to take territory and delay Russia from crushing them close to border 1944.
7. Sitzkrieg, this is where Germany takes out Gibralter, all the med and attacks Russia in 1943 just to take borders so it takes a looooong time for the allies to take it back. Very boring but effective for axis to win on VPs.

basically randomly pick a strategy each game and build for it and take the objectives one at a time.

Weather: definitely, has to be more apparent in this game

Added Units: Could be but not needed on this scale.

Supply: The overland system is fine, although rail would be nice. Rail extends the same supply as long as its on rail. overland supply drops severely. Overseas supply should be transported (see convoys below)

Naval:
Carriers should have a seperate air component.
Personally I like fleet markers but its not for the scale of this game.
Convoys: Allow players to create their own convoys (resource or supply). Then allow players to simply assign ships to convoy duty instead of having players shlep their ships across the ocean each time a convoy comes.

Air attacking Naval: While 1 counter of air reps 100's of planes in reality there were only a handful of pilots capable of ocean navigation and hitting a moving target. I suggest when an air unit attacks a naval unit make a search roll (finds or doesnt find) for the air unit. The farther out at sea the harder it is to spot.

Really thats it.[/list]

[Redpossum]

Air attacking Naval: While 1 counter of air reps 100's of planes in reality there were only a handful of pilots capable of ocean navigation and hitting a moving target. I suggest when an air unit attacks a naval unit make a search roll (finds or doesnt find) for the air unit. The farther out at sea the harder it is to spot.

Man oh man, is this ever true, the basic observation about finding naval units. The battles of The Coral Sea and Midway, in the Pacific in 1942, both contain extreme examples of this. And if anything, Atlantic weather is even more severe than that in the South or Central Pacific.

BUT, I can tell you right now how the devs are going to answer this. They're going to say that that is true on a given day, but since each game turn represents 20 days, and each "attack" represents days of attacks, that the weather or spotting incidents of one day will not affect the overall results in that 20 day period.

I could be wrong, but I'd bet you a dozen doughnuts that will be the answer

[borsook79]

Air attacking Naval: While 1 counter of air reps 100's of planes in reality there were only a handful of pilots capable of ocean navigation and hitting a moving target. I suggest when an air unit attacks a naval unit make a search roll (finds or doesnt find) for the air unit. The farther out at sea the harder it is to spot.

Man oh man, is this ever true, the basic observation about finding naval units. The battles of The Coral Sea and Midway, in the Pacific in 1942, both contain extreme examples of this. And if anything, Atlantic weather is even more severe than that in the South or Central Pacific.

BUT, I can tell you right now how the devs are going to answer this. They're going to say that that is true on a given day, but since each game turn represents 20 days, and each "attack" represents days of attacks, that the weather or spotting incidents of one day will not affect the overall results in that 20 day period.

I could be wrong, but I'd bet you a dozen doughnuts that will be the answer

On the other hand most attacks were done quite close to the shore and the ships were usually spotted by land observation posts or other ships and with getting up-to-date coordinates finding them was not that hard for the pilot. So it really depends, generally I'd say that shorter distances and well known seas made the situation a bit different from the pacific theatre.

[ErichVonNeu]

If CEAW 2 is released, and if it starts in 1936, how about including nuclear research? What if the Germans had their own manhattan project? What if Hitler got purged? What if the Germans developed synthetic oil plants en masse, etc..

[borsook79]

If CEAW 2 is released, and if it starts in 1936, how about including nuclear research? What if the Germans had their own manhattan project? What if Hitler got purged? What if the Germans developed synthetic oil plants en masse, etc..

Sounds like you'd like to have HOI with hexes

[ErichVonNeu]

Hehe, I can understand why you think that. Have never played HOI, however, but rather A3R (board game) and the classic Storm Across Europe...

[Redpossum]

On the other hand most attacks were done quite close to the shore and the ships were usually spotted by land observation posts or other ships and with getting up-to-date coordinates finding them was not that hard for the pilot. So it really depends, generally I'd say that shorter distances and well known seas made the situation a bit different from the pacific theatre.

Right, because the Atlantic is so much smaller than the Pacific

And you've ignored the issue of weather

Perhaps you could cite a couple historical examples to illustrate your point?

[borsook79]

On the other hand most attacks were done quite close to the shore and the ships were usually spotted by land observation posts or other ships and with getting up-to-date coordinates finding them was not that hard for the pilot. So it really depends, generally I'd say that shorter distances and well known seas made the situation a bit different from the pacific theatre.

Right, because the Atlantic is so much smaller than the Pacific

And you've ignored the issue of weather

Perhaps you could cite a couple historical examples to illustrate your point?

Did you mean Atlantic specifically? I thought you meant the European front, and if you look at all the fights (and all the times fleet were withdrawn due to the dominance of air force) in regions like English Channel, North sea, Sicily coast, Crete, etc etc you will see what I meant.

[MrsWargamer]

Most of the original post likely makes some sense.

Myself, I have only two real interests.

Seeing stacking become possible.

Seeing it get ported to the DS hand held console. Or at the very least, being ported into the realm of conventional consoles.

Ways to get me to yawn.

Make the same mistake SC2 made, and take a good initial game, and screw it up with supposedly clever ideas.

Inform me that consoles are too expensive. Your excuses don't interest me when I see how easy if is for doofus companies to dump junk like Imagine Teacher on the market. Saying a wargame maker can't compete with Imagine Teacher, is the same as saying the average wargame maker isn't even as smart as the makers of Imagine Teacher.

That's the impression you give, that's the impression you must change.

I'm ok living without the stacking. WW2 Road to Victory has joined the can't seem to offer stacking club apparently.
Sure would like to know what the problem is though.

I don't really need a CEAW 2 so much as I need a CEAW that can leap off the computer.
I sure don't need a CEAW Pacific as if that will be regarded as a "revolutionary" concept.
I might find the game's engine fun if applied to a scifi setting in the far future or an entirely fantasy setting something not unlike Fantasy General or Age of Wonders.
I think there is room to take CEAW engine to the war in Korea.

[GaryChildress]

Bump...

Also improved map graphics, something along the lines of Napoleon at War would be unbelievably fantastic!

[Ryben]

I´ll add pretty much innovations that were included in CNAW.

- Artillery units. A very interesting option with lots of tactical challenges.

- Siege, exactly as CNAW again.

- Specific scenarios, not involving all the countries and in a smaller scale. Lybia, Barbarossa, D-Day...

- Subs dealing much more damage to convoys. They are treated as "superunits" of 50,70,100 health and it´s impossible to hunt them down.

- Light tank units / heavy tank units: Like cavalry in CNAW, faster but weaker tanks or heavy but slower.

[joerock22]

I agree with some of the things you're saying, but not others. Artillery works for the Napoleonic era because the style of warfare in the period lent itself to large-scale battles that would only last a few days tops. World War 2 is completely different. Blitzkreig was an ongoing campaign, major battles like Stalingrad lasted for months, and fronts were much wider. I get the impression that artillery was spread out fairly evenly along these long fronts, with small field artillery units lending support to infantry and armor. I think having units of field artillery you can see on the map is ahistorical and impractical. With air power controlling the skies, large gatherings of artillery would simply be bombed into oblivion. I can see it now: spend all those PP on an artillery unit only to have it completely wiped out in one turn by air attacks or a tank unit sneaking behind your lines. While it's true that large siege guns were used in certain places, like Leningrad, they were probably few in number and bombers were much more prevalent. I like how CEAW has set artillery as a technology improvement for infantry, and I don't think separate artillery units on the map would be appropriate.
For specific scenarios, the appeal is limited for me because of the number of fronts possible. If you were going to do it, I would want Germanys' PP lowered in each scenario to compensate for what it might have to spend fighting on other fronts. It wouldn't be fair or realistic if the Axis was allowed to spend 100% on fighting Russia, for example, and operate for free on all the other fronts.
Having subs deal more damage to convoys isn't something I would like. Early convoys are small, and if you want to destroy larger ones you need to build more subs and improve them. Every time you attack you lower the PP they carry too, so you don't have to actually destroy a convoy to make an impact.
As for light tanks, I seriously doubt I'd be tempted to use them at all. What's the point? They won't be as effective against infantry or armor. The only use I could think of for them is to dash behind enemy lines and wipe out air units. But if you do that, they get cut off, and then run out of supply, and then you're stuck.

[GaryChildress]

One thing I would REALLY, REALLY like to see is a better casualty screen. I wish the game had a screen that would keep track of how many units had been destroyed and stuff like that. Right now casualties are expressed in abstract terms, game-wise. It does me no good to know how many millions of men have been killed or how many thousands of tanks destroyed. That gives me almost no useful information as far as trying to figure out how much real damage I have done to the enemy. I've been keeping a running tab on approximately how many units I think I have destroyed but I've lost accurate count. It would be great to have a screen that would tell me how many enemy tank units I have destroyed etc. As it stands this appears to be all there is and it really doesn't do anything for the game.

[H_Guderian]

I think it was mentioned but more troop choices like airborne or engineers come to mind, also maybe some mountain infantry.

[rkr1958]

One thing I would REALLY, REALLY like to see is a better casualty screen. I wish the game had a screen that would keep track of how many units had been destroyed and stuff like that. Right now casualties are expressed in abstract terms, game-wise. It does me no good to know how many millions of men have been killed or how many thousands of tanks destroyed. That gives me almost no useful information as far as trying to figure out how much real damage I have done to the enemy. I've been keeping a running tab on approximately how many units I think I have destroyed but I've lost accurate count. It would be great to have a screen that would tell me how many enemy tank units I have destroyed etc. As it stands this appears to be all there is and it really doesn't do anything for the game.

You can convert casualties to an equivalent number of step losses.

Infantry (1-step loss) = 5036
Tanks (1-step loss) = 52
Air (1-step loss) = 26
Ships (1-step loss) = 5

One interesting thing that I've found is that if you have an unit in transport and that transport takes step losses then those losses do NOT show up under that unit type. For example a 10-step infantry unit is loaded on a transport and that transport losses 3-steps to an air attack, those 3-steps do not show up under infantry casualties. I can't recall if they show up under ships.