World War II Europe Potential Change List V1.09

[chemkid]

@chemkid,
What is your status on developing more graphics?
Ron

hi ron!
atm, i'm real busy with everything RL related... i hope to have news about progress on this mapmod when xmas holiday starts in a few weeks.
kind regards,

robert

[Schwerpunkt Valencia]

Hi Ron,

Are you planning to forward us the text files so we can edit them and send them back to fill some of the scenarios ?

If so I might be helping with some of the existing ones. As they will be an alternative option you can decide whether to include them or not.

Kind regards

Schwerpunkt Valencia

[schwerpt]

I would like to finish the standard scenarios first, then open it up for other developers on the larger Campaign scenarios.  I also would like to find some way to ensure that the scenarios built by others will be shared with the community, including me!

Ron

[Christolos]

Attached is my list of potential changes for v1.0.9.  I am requesting that the community review it, and let me know if there are items missing.  Once I have the complete list, then I want to get feedback on the ones for v1.0.9.

Thanks in advance,
Ron

I definitely like 40 

What happened to adding more bonuses based on the number of attacking unit types as discussed here:
http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/topic,3089.0.html

C

[Gray_Lensman]

I would like to finish the standard scenarios first, then open it up for other developers on the larger Campaign scenarios.  I also would like to find some way to ensure that the scenarios built by others will be shared with the community, including me!

Ron

Ron:

re: the larger Campaign scenarios

One of the really cool features of Jim Dunnigan's (SPI) War in Europe design was the ability to use a production system to build up armed forces of your own OOB specifications. It seems your game design so far always leans towards providing the historically produced units as reinforcements, which is great for the narrower scope limited turn scenarios.

Within your current design, however, you have the capability of reaching out to this final step of providing a true variable production capability.

If you haven't already given it some thought, here's an idea to peruse.

You already have a "pick and choose" production feature coded in Section 6.6 Rebuild a Destroyed Unit

All that's needed to expand that for campaign scenario production is to rework the Scenario file's "Unit Array" definition to include a field that allows the scenario designer to pre-designate a new unit as a destroyed unit instead of arriving as a reinforcement. (This might even be done by adding a third field to the already existing fields for "Entry_Exit_#" using 0 to denote normal reinforcement and 1 to denote a new "destroyed" unit. This has the benefit of allowing the scenario designer to designate a specific turn that the new"destroyed" unit enters the destroyed unit queue. The campaign scenario designer can then "pre-load" the unit array with new "destroyed units" that will then be available for the Rebuild/Production system.

At that point, the P/M system comes into play and will need tweaking to increase the historical amounts available each turn. The beauty of this is that it also allows for a strategic bombing campaign to reduce the amount of P/M available that turn for usage in this production system. Might even be able to apply it to the number of U-Boats out on patrol (not in port) affecting UK/USA/USSR P/M points also. The Allied player would have to take active measures to attack U-Boats to keep their numbers down in order to obtain their full quota of P/M points for their own production.

You could even make this "Production" system optional but that would take some more work designing different weekly P/M point(s) availability and maybe a fourth field to denote a new unit as a normal reinforcement or destroyed unit depending on the option choice.

This entire idea might be for a final version beyond v1.09, but the future "Unit Array" field definition might have to be thought out now and implemented to forestall user modded scenario files haring to be reworked in the future.

Anyhow, just my $.02.

Regards

[Christolos]

Summarizing what I have heard so far:
Those items getting two or more votes are 1, 3, 4, 13, 16, and 23.
My "wish list" for Christmas is 1, 3, 4 and 16 first.

Any more votes?
Thanks,
Ron

I vote for 40 since the AI is totally ineffective without it!

More bonuses base on the number of different attacking unit types to make artillery more important, would also be nice

C

[schwerpt]

Question to the community:

The HQ units can be used in a gamey approach to take cities and cut off supply behind enemy lines, whereas historically they stayed behind their own lines.  How would everyone feel about a blanket approach of reducing their MF from 8 to 3 in all scenarios?  This would take away the gamey HQ blitzkrieg concept, yet still allow them to move out of harm's way (usually).

Thanks in advance for your opinion.
Ron

[Asid]

Hi Ron

Your solution seems a good one. Maybe release a test version?

Regards

[Franciscus]

It could be tried, but would that not hamper the historical situations of real "blitzkrieg" ? Will it not reduce the max speed of advance of german forces, say, in the opening phases of Brabarossa or Poland invasion ?

Regards

[Gray_Lensman]

Why not code HQs such that they cannot move/enter a city (uncontrolled by their own side) until it actually is controlled by their side, much like air units can't rebase (i.e. move) into an uncontrolled city.?

We're only talking a delay of one phase for a combat unit to take control preceding the HQ movement into the city and it is much more realistic to prevent an HQ from seizing/entering a previously uncontrolled city prior to an actual combat unit entry anyhow. It just doesn't sound right to limit the HQs overall movement in all aspects just to counter this gamey situation. AND in reality it would still be gamey for an HQ to seize control of a uncontrolled city even with a movement factor of only 3.

I can hear the argument that it might possibly slow up the combat units' pace also, but isn't that what splitting off brigades/regiments is for? Just split a unit up temporarily with a brigade/regiment taking city control and it can catch up the next phase or so for recombination.

[Ronster]

I would leave the armor and mechanized HQ's at their current movement rate and make it so like they have no zoc or cannot affect supply lines.  Also, when an HQ takes several hits, nothing happens to their effectiveness, maybe something could be coded for damage to an HQ.

     I would also like to make a plug on Grey Lensman production post.  War in Europe by SPI was know for its production and strategies would revolve around it.  In the rebuilding of units, you have the potential for the same type of production.  Would Germany build more armor, air, or a greater submarine fleet.  It might not be to hard to code, except it would just make a campaign game that much neater.

Ron

[Reckall]

Hi! My first post here!

Here are my votes (with some notes):

1.   Implement range distance for HQ links, and assess a -1/2 AF/DF for out of range.
2.   Continue to display the reports after scrolling
4.   Add Defensive Air Support operation [Improves realism]
6.   Improve Move to Exploit and Breakthrough Combat AI
7.   Add air unit losses based on flak [Among other things, helps in evaluating the intensity of enemy flak]
10.   Division size unit should recover 3 supply losses per turn, while non division size units recover one supply loss per turn
11.   Have different recovery times for each country
13.   Add railroad conversion rules for East Front/Great Patriotic War [I'm 50%/50% on this. It is realistic, but it also increases micromanagement]
16.   Implement surrender rules for isolated units (per country per year). [Well, I'm Italian, so... ]
18.   Separate air, naval, and mech replacements points
19.   Stacking rules take unit size into account
22.   Bring back Hold Ground, Normal and Give Ground rules from AGW.
23.   Bring back Air Interdiction ops from AGW.
31.   Add Malta garrison on #9 and #13.  Same as #15 [It just makes sense.]
36.   Fix map. Island hex 200,147 should be part of Denmark [This should be quite simple]
40.   Have AI select between the three attack methods.
44.   Check all scenarios for missing fixed artillery in select coastal cities.

[Ronster]

One of my top items for Version 1.09 is defensive air as I think it would make the offensive in this game a little more difficult.  To me, WWII Europe is an offensive minded game.

Ron

[Ronster]

Is anyone out there playing some of these scenario?  What are your thoughts so far?

Ron

[Schwerpunkt Valencia]

I have playing many of the existing scenarios but some of them need to be ironed out. Being said this, I have to admit I am a great fan of Ron´s games but in this particular case there are still many bugs and missing features.

Aside of the features you mention that would be worth to implement like in AGW I think many scenarios are not consistent in terms of OOBs. I suppose Ron is too busy to sort them out.

Once bugs are removed and some of the mentioned upgrades put in place this is going to be an incredibly good wargame !

Cheers

Schwerpunkt Valencia