New Land Unit Types

[Joram]

Hi, since it appears you are adding new air units which is good. I am ok with the present system but if this adds more flavour without complicating it too much, that's great. But even before I saw that thread, I was thinking it would be interesting to have two new types of units.
One, would be mountain units. This would be single divisions like airborne units and with the same strengths and costs. Their main attribute though is that they would treat mountains like clear when moving and possibly have a attack or defensive bonus in mountains. They would be upgradeable just like airborne units are.

The other would be cavalry units. These would only be tech level 1 and would be no stronger than a tech level 1 infantry. They would cost a bit more than a tech level 1 infantry, perhaps the same as a tech 2. Anyway, they can only be divisions, cannot be upgraded and their main attribute would simply be they would be as fast (or nearly so) as a motorized unit but take less supply (if that varies by unit). Given the amount of cav still in use by some armies, it would be interesting to see them start with them. Obviously fragile units but in certain situations, mainly land grabbing and encircling, could be worth it.

Neither are required of course but would give the game a bit more flavor. I thought about a 'mechanized' unit but that's really covered already with your motorized unit and don't think there's really a place between the armored unit and motorized unit that needs to be filled. These others however may open new tactical options and like I said, give a bit more variety to the game.

[Anraz]

All cavalry units are present in the game... as level 1 mot division/corps.  Even the sprite of this units  has a horse next to the truck (most of such units even in poor countries during ww2 were at least semi motorized ). Thus players has ability to upgrade a cavalry to fully motorized unit, what IMO is better then having separate inupgradable cavalry. Also (because of that) level 1 mot units are weaker then level 1 infantry (0.5 versus 1 point in case of divisions). This is similar to your description.   Considering  mountain units they would definitely give some more fun while playing, but such units were less then 5% of all infantry units and simultaneously adding a  new type of units to this engine is very very difficult...

[Joram]

Oh, I don't use sprites so didn't notice that about the motorized units.  That is indeed similar enough to what I was thinking. 
Ok, understand that it's difficult, so just put it on the wish list I guess. 
 

[Uxbridge]

One change I would like to see is one that would be possible within the existing game engine. Instead of commanders, which seems a little "Tarzan" to me, I would like to see HQ's. They could function in a similar way as commanders, but instead of having a large effect on the carrying unit and a lesser effect on those in its immediate whereabouts, they would influence all units within a certain radius, say five to six hexes out, without any further benefits to the carrying unit. They gain experience like commanders, but not by far as dramatic as it is now.
 
All nations would then have a limited number of these HQ's and they would rather simulate additional artillery assetts, gathering of supply depots and pre-planning for major offensives than an ostensibly great mind of certain individuals. HQ's should only be allowed to be attached to leg units, thus hampering their mobility. They could be made available as time goes by with special events.
 
I tried to mod this in RtV and was partly successful. It wasn't easy to get the "six hexes radius", but otherwise it did work. Germany had two HQ's at start, gradually getting more of them in 1941-42, with a decline in number from 43 onwards; the Soviets had one new each year, etcetera.
 
With the commanders, I had lost interest quite quickly, but with HQ's they became a more important factor in the overall planning, forcing you to figure which fronts should recieve HQ's and which could do without.
 
Of course, a solution like this would not appeal to players who fancy a little "Rommel around" now and then. [:)]
 
 

[Joram]

Interesting thoughts.  I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to seeing something like that but one of the things I like about the game is it's simplicity yet capturing many of the difficulties of the campaign.  I would think that something like dedicated HQ units may start increasing the complexity a bit too much.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not adverse to complex things but that's not why I got this game.  I'm actually a little leery of the air changes for the same reason but am willing to try it out.

[Uxbridge]

No, the complexity wouldn't change a bit. The commanders are already there and would simply be replaced by the HQ's. As for complexity, you just think a little differently, trying to place your HQ's where you want to press home your offensives, or, conversely, where you expect your opponent to make an effort.
 
The only thing that has to be made is that the effect and range must be re-coded.
 
But never mind this, they won't do it since the scenarios must be re-made as well. But it is fun to dream a little and some of them actually comes trhrough. [:D]

[Joram]

Oh ok, I actually was complicating it in my mind.  Your idea would actually be great as right now I lose track of my generals too easily.  It's easy to move em around of course but not seeing them separate means I forget about them a lot.  Having a dedicated HQ unit would help solve it as long as that's really it was meant for.

[gwgardner]

HQs would be preferable to the current commander system. However, I don't see that it would be as simple to implement as you suggest. A commander is currently not a unit. Would love to hear from the developer concerning the feasibility of HQ units, instead of 'attached' commander personalities.

[Uxbridge]

No, you get me wrong, guys. The HQ wouldn't be a new unit. Technically its still the commander with the little star on the counter and everything else. The only thing that has to be made is a hard-code change of range and effect and that we re-christen them as 1st Army, 2nd Army, and so on, in place of the present commander's name.

Talking on top of my head, I recall that now (in RtW, that is) a commander gives a substantial bonus to the carrying unit, half of that to the six adjacent ones, whereafter the effect fades out to nothing after some hexes. I would like to see that changed to a four to five hexes range (debatable, of course) with no extra bonus to the carrier and no reduction due to range.

If HQ's were employed and their effect stretched as far as four hexes, there would be no real reason having them in the direct frontline. You could buy a 1-level infantry unit, attach the HQ just as a general and keep them two or three hexes from the front. This would also make them more manageable, since they're easily spotted and only have to move if the general frontline does the same. Re-allocating them would be exactly like with the commanders, as the HQ's are in fact the commanders, albeit with their function altered.

[carnifex]

I would like to see leader casualties. If the leader's unit is destroyed there should be a chance that the leader becomes (90%) wounded and returns after 6 months or becomes dead (10%) and is removed.

[Uxbridge]

Look!! HQ-units! [X(]

Typical frontline with air units and supporting HQ's at some distance:

[doomtrader]

Personally I prefer to have this little Rommel around, but I think that most of the issues addresed in this thread are moddable.
Dd you take a look at consts.csv file in lines 240 and 247?

[Uxbridge]

Yes, 240.

I changed max range and max efficiency to 12 and 300 respectively. The effect was kinda weird, but served our purposes. On the turn before an offensive the most important units collected around the HQ. The next turn they were rather turbo. The effect wore off rather fast, though, since the HQ had problems keeping pace, which was good. The main problem, however, was that in order to affect units some hexes off at all, I hade to affect units close a lot.

I would like to have something like stated in the post further up. A certain strength bonus, say 25 % or something, to all units within the HQ radius; and a radius of 4 hexes. Could I mod that? As far as I see it must be hard re-coded, mustn't it? 

[SeaMonkey]

HQs and Commanders, that's it, why not both(as one unit)!  The commander would/could be an historical figure, a recognizable army group commander with certain attributes, possibly a proficiency rating, you would need to purchase/organize one.  As the HQ goes through its battle testing, it acquires experience and together with its proficiency rating passes it on to the attached units under its radius of influence(owning player dictates attachments).  The number and amount of attachments could be tied to a national "command and control" tech/doctrine loosely based on what was historical for each belligerent.

Now, what else can be a characteristic of the HQ command structure?  Already mentioned additional combat support organizations, like heavy artillery batteries, engineers, heavy tank / tank destroyer battalions, anti-air....etc etc. and one other important aspect, logistical marshalling and distribution, ie. supplies.

In those extreme environments where logistical support is so difficult, what do you use there, ...as a combat enhancer,..a commitment to operations, offensive minded,...the player controlled HQcommander. Who will you need to protect with the utmost care, the most important target your opponent will be looking for?

Are you visualizing certain strategies unfolding?  How about operational aspects.....and even tactics driven maneuver of the influenced ground/air/naval units?  That's what great wargames have, however abstracted, they have the flavor of all the scales, GS, strategic, operational and yes...even the tactical layer...to a certain degree.

[carnifex]

I personally do not like separate dedicated HQ units in a game that doesn't allow stacking. There are too many places on the map where you would have to make an unrealistic choice: do I send the XII Panzer Korps into that 20 kilometer expanse, or will that space be take up by Colonel Klink and his kubelwagon?

[Uxbridge]

Both HQ's and commanders just isn't on for now. The only question is wether the commanders should be replaced by HQ's, and that's basically just my idea. It may not find any support from developers or players. Anyway, there's no need extra units on the map, since either choice will be intrinsic with the combat unit.
 

[Andrew Loveridge]

Personally I prefer the commanders.  Having an HQ 50 miles from the front having a significant effect on other units seems too powerful.  In a more tactical scaled game, four spaces would make sense to me.

[Uxbridge]

But could the hard code be changed so that the option is modable?

If we have three basic factors: (1.) the effect on the unit carrying the commander (before changes due to 247); (2.) the effect on units nearby the commander; and (3.) the number of hexes from carrying unit that case 2 applies to.

If so we could still have the original commanders go with the game, with pre-set effects similar to those present, but also an option to mod it at one's desire. This way the casual buyer will never even know of the option.

As for the effect of HQ's, I'm not so much after boosting the power in some sectors as lessen them in others where the effort may not be regarded so important. It is to pose a limitation of assetts for the player and to force him into choices. An example could be the Ardennes 1944, where the German player temporarily moves three (out of four) of his HQ's from the eastern front to strengthen his effort in the west. The Allied player is taken by surprise. He has one of his British HQ's further north, two of his American HQ's further south and the remaining British and American HQ's in Italy. Due to poor recon efforts in this part of the front, the Allied player never noticed that his opponent moved the HQ's and the next turn the German units are strengthened and attack. The Axis player, on the other hand, have taken a chance to do this move, since he has now only one HQ left in the east. But he's betting on the Russian player not to notice this for a turn or two.

This is the kind of play I'm looking for! It is a way to force the player to think ahead, as I see it one of the most prominent factors in a good game. Of course, this may not be so appealing to the more opportunistic player. If the choice could be modable, however, both parties can have their way.

[sjorsl88]

you can also call the hq unit a support division/corps since long range artillery can give covering fire and give the other corps more firepower[:)]

[Uxbridge]

Yes, and since HQ's would partly portray supply gathering, there's also a interdiction factor in their presence. If a certain front sector is boosted 25 % by the close proximity of an HQ, the opponent also have the chance to lower that extra strength by attacking the unit carrying the HQ. With multiple attacks he may be able to knock it out, thus rendering the HQ into limbo for some time and lowering the enemy strenght at the front. This will also make the new recon system more interesting, when air units first search for HQ's and then fight to destroy them. It is also something that at times would make fast armour operations more exciting, trying to knock out the opponents HQ's.

ToW is basically a strategic game. With HQ's, the players will have to make strategic decisions, which would go more in line with the game's overall scale and purpose than the local, hex-oriented tactical ones. The players have to decide which fronts are of minor importance and could be left weaker, and which sectors are important and need to be boosted with extra muscles.

Remember, I'm not suggesting that one use HQs in the standard game against the AI, only that it should be a modable possibility for scenarios played against a real opponent.