3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

[ralphtricky]

This is aimed at the designers again. Nothing major that should 'break' any scenario, but some may be 'bent.' THis may also open up some more possibilities in scenario designs, along with the Elmer changes.

Design
Optional New Flanking Rules - If you have adjacent units 180 degrees apart, it's a flanking attack. If he has two non-adjacent hexes that he
can't be attacked from (one sea hex to the NW and one unit friendly to him to the NE, for example.) Right now, if you have a horizontal
front on the map, it will actually zig-zag because of the hexes. This is intended to make sure that even though the line zig-zags, it
won't introduce arbitrary cases where units are flanked.
Possible consequences include making it easier to defend, and making map edges more important.

What would Elmer do?
The player can display Elmer's objective tracks in order to have a clue about his possible actions. That means that even if you don't program Elmer, you may want to set up the objective tracks.

Better international support. Added in better support for UTF-8 in XML. That means that the equipment.xml file, among other files should be looked at again to make sure that the international characters work correctly. That means that some places may be able to use Russian for the Russian units, etc. The code still doesn't understand that Fonts can be of different hieghts, so the support is still limited. You should be careful to provide a link to the font file if you use a non-standard one.

Foreground sound files can now be per scenario just like graphics files. In addition, you can (but don't have to) put a 1 or 2 in front for the player number) for example, 1advance.ogg and 2advance.ogg or just advance.ogg.

Max Movelement Bias range has been increased. This may help some scenarios that simulate 1 km hexes, although extreme values will have strange results.

Guerrila units should now be properly invisible if not moving and the hex is not 'seen'. Previously, they weren't unless they were the top unit.

Fixed problem with some scenarios created with early versions of the editor like Suez 73. Units would occasionally change formations when being divided.

Helicopters and Equipment transported by equipment now takes less damage. (You need 4 to 1 odds instead of 10 to 1 to be safe)

Helicopters can't take the train.

The Anti-shipping flag and DPMX flags now work on ships. This should make missile ships effective on shipping.

Airmobile units will now bounce back instead of just hanging in the water/etc. if you click off them and they can't debark.

Helicopters no longer react if on reserves.

Speeded up Elmer's movement.

OOB XML Export has been improved. The Unit and Formation numbers are not relative to the side, they start with 1 for both sides. This may make understanding events a little harder until I add a side into the export. On the other hand, that makes easier to change if we want to expand the units/formations later.

OOB XML Import of objectives has been fixed.

Weather just got worse. The couds weren't clustering the way that they should have.

Helicopters

Helicopters are treated differently from regular traffic. They are very durable, but prone to damage. Helicopters and equipment transported by helicopters will always go into the replacement pool instead of being destroyed.

Whether an attack occurs depends on vwhether the Enemy has noticed the hex, an electron support check, how much Low AA Fire they might be subject to, and the unit density in the hex. This means that you should fly over the jungles people, not the enemy concentrations!

The attacking and defending AA units don't have a direct affect on casualties, only on whether damage occurs.

Damage is based on Enemy supriority compared to frielndly superiority, and has enemy AA added if AA spotted them.

Currently if you have at least a 4 to 1 advantage in the air (including local AA) you should be safe, casulaties mount quickly after that, however.

EDIT:Added the fact that the new flanking rules are optional.
EDIT:Added Weather just got worse. The couds weren't clustering the way that they should have.

[Veers]

Awesome. Thanks for the list, Ralph.

Helicopters

Helicopters are treated differently from regular traffic. They are very durable, but prone to damage. Helicopters and equipment transported by helicopters will always go into the replacement pool instead of being destroyed.

Whether an attack occurs depends on vwhether the Enemy has noticed the hex, an electron support check, how much Low AA Fire they might be subject to, and the unit density in the hex. This means that you should fly over the jungles people, not the enemy concentrations!

The attacking and defending AA units don't have a direct affect on casualties, only on whether damage occurs.

Damage is based on Enemy supriority compared to frielndly superiority, and has enemy AA added if AA spotted them.

Currently if you have at least a 4 to 1 advantage in the air (including local AA) you should be safe, casulaties mount quickly after that, however.

Awe-some.

Airmobile units will now bounce back instead of just hanging in the water/etc. if you click off them and they can't debark.

Does this mean that is we disembark a helo unit before we de-click it it will maintain its full MPs, instead of the stupid behavior it had previously?

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

...
Max Movelement Bias range has been increased. This may help some scenarios that simulate 1 km hexes, although extreme values will have strange results.

...

Fixed problem with some scenarios created with early versions of the editor like Suez 73. Units would occasionally change formations when being divided.

You're the man Ralph...[&o]

...


Helicopters


... Helicopters and equipment transported by helicopters will always go into the replacement pool instead of being destroyed.

...

Could you clarify this a little bit? Does this apply to helicopters which are 'shot down?' Are helicopters ever 'shot down' (i.e., destroyed, not placed in replacement pool) by air units in 'Air superiority' mode?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sstevens06
Could you clarify this a little bit? Does this apply to helicopters which are 'shot down?' Are helicopters ever 'shot down' (i.e., destroyed, not placed in replacement pool) by air units in 'Air superiority' mode?

The helicopter issue has been improved but not yet reached final resolution. We decided it needs more public discussion.

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Speeded up Elmer's movement.

[&o]That was an item on my personal wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
New Flanking Rules - If you have adjacent units 180 degrees apart, it's a flanking attack. If he has two non-adjacent hexes that he
can't be attacked from (one sea hex to the NW and one unit friendly to him to the NE, for example.) Right now, if you have a horizontal
front on the map, it will actually zig-zag because of the hexes. This is intended to make sure that even though the line zig-zags, it
won't introduce arbitrary cases where units are flanked.
Possible consequences include making it easier to defend, and making map edges more important.

I thought this might benefit from an illustration. In the attached screenshot, there are six attacks scheduled. Under the old rules, all six would have gotten the flanking bonus. Under the new rules, only the bottom three get it. The top three attacks will not.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
New Flanking Rules - If you have adjacent units 180 degrees apart, it's a flanking attack. If he has two non-adjacent hexes that he
can't be attacked from (one sea hex to the NW and one unit friendly to him to the NE, for example.) Right now, if you have a horizontal
front on the map, it will actually zig-zag because of the hexes. This is intended to make sure that even though the line zig-zags, it
won't introduce arbitrary cases where units are flanked.
Possible consequences include making it easier to defend, and making map edges more important.

I thought this might benefit from an illustration. In the attached screenshot, there are six attacks scheduled. Under the old rules, all six would have gotten the flanking bonus. Under the new rules, only the bottom three get it. The top three attacks will not.

Excellent illustration, Bob!

[ralphtricky]

Thanks Bob!

What I'm trying to do is to get people to think more about flanking[:-] Under the current rules, the top 3 would be considered flanking attacks. This should make defense a bit easier, and breakthroughs more important. (I hope)

Ralph

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Speeded up Elmer's movement.

[&o]That was an item on my personal wishlist

The next patch should speed up Elmer's ships (especially carriers.) He's basically looking at most of the sea hexes to figure out where to go to best support a combat.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Thanks Bob!
What I'm trying to do is to get people to think more about flanking[:-] Under the current rules, the top 3 would be considered flanking attacks. This should make defense a bit easier, and breakthroughs more important. (I hope)
Ralph

Don't you mean the bottom three, Ralph?

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Thanks Bob!
What I'm trying to do is to get people to think more about flanking[:-] Under the current rules, the top 3 would be considered flanking attacks. This should make defense a bit easier, and breakthroughs more important. (I hope)
Ralph

Don't you mean the bottom three, Ralph?

No, this time, I didn't get mixed up, just didn't explain it.[:-] I meant that under the current (COW and 3.x rules) The top three are flanking. Under the new rules, they aren't.[X(]

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Thanks Bob!
What I'm trying to do is to get people to think more about flanking[:-] Under the current rules, the top 3 would be considered flanking attacks. This should make defense a bit easier, and breakthroughs more important. (I hope)
Ralph

Don't you mean the bottom three, Ralph?

No, this time, I didn't get mixed up, just didn't explain it.[:-] I meant that under the current (COW and 3.x rules) The top three are flanking. Under the new rules, they aren't.[X(]

Excellent.

[shunwick]

Ok. Being incredibly dense here but I didn't understand Ralph's original description of the new flanking rules and despite Bob's visual aid (thanks for that by the way) I still don't understand the new flanking rules. Can someone help me out? Why don't the top three examples qualify for a flanking bonus?

Best wishes,

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: shunwick
Ok. Being incredibly dense here but I didn't understand Ralph's original description of the new flanking rules and despite Bob's visual aid (thanks for that by the way) I still don't understand the new flanking rules. Can someone help me out? Why don't the top three examples qualify for a flanking bonus?

Best wishes,

The original rules were that if you attacked from 120 degrees apart, then it was considered a flanking attack. Unfortunately, if the map has the set up to attack north to south or south to north, the defensive line would be 'jagged', and almost every other unit could be flanked.

This didn't make sense to me, so when I thought about the problem I realized that we could change the rules slightly to make things more logical.

If you are defending and have your two 'flanking' hexes (120 degrees apart) defended, you can't be flanked. If you are able to anchor one side of your unit with a lake, mountain, or friendly unit, and the other side with a similar unit, then he can't get behind you to put your non-active equipment at risk.

Does that make more sense? Take a look at the top three combats and see if it makes sense that the defender would have the non-active equipment placed such that the attacker couldn't get to it.

Ralph

[shunwick]

So in example 5 if I had one of the supporting grey units in the hex to the south this would stop the flanking attack? Likewise having a unit in the northern hex in example 6? Would it make any difference if the these two hexes were controlled by grey (as opposed to be occupied by grey)?

Best wishes and only slightly less confused,

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: shunwick
So in example 5 if I had one of the supporting grey units in the hex to the south this would stop the flanking attack?

Correct.

Likewise having a unit in the northern hex in example 6? Would it make any difference if the these two hexes were controlled by grey (as opposed to be occupied by grey)?

No.

[shunwick]

Ok. I think I have got it. But aren't the flanking attacks in examples 5 and 6 stretching the principle a bit especially on the higher scaled hexes. I mean, I can see the flanking attack at 2.5 Km/hex but not so easily on a 50 km/hex or am I thinking of this the wrong way?

Best wishes and less confused than I was but still slightly worried,

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: shunwick
Ok. I think I have got it. But aren't the flanking attacks in examples 5 and 6 stretching the principle a bit especially on the higher scaled hexes. I mean, I can see the flanking attack at 2.5 Km/hex but not so easily on a 50 km/hex or am I thinking of this the wrong way?

Well, this is the way it has always worked...How do you mean 'stretching the priniciple a bit'?

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Ok. I think I have got it. But aren't the flanking attacks in examples 5 and 6 stretching the principle a bit especially on the higher scaled hexes. I mean, I can see the flanking attack at 2.5 Km/hex but not so easily on a 50 km/hex or am I thinking of this the wrong way?

Best wishes and less confused than I was but still slightly worried,

I see your point, but remember that the units aren't exactly in the middle of the hex. The main thing I wanted to fix was the horizontal fronts being 'bumpy' and allowing flanking attacks everyhwere diluting their importance.

The other choice would seem to be requiring 180 degree attacks, which would make flank attacks almost never happen.

I feel that if you stick your nose out that far, it should get punched.

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: Veers
Well, this is the way it has always worked...

But after the update it won't work the way it used to work.

Best wishes and beginning to think that now is not a good time to be giving up my beloved pipe,