EA for AE - Planning discussion...

[Nemo121]

Well I'm pretty much ready to begin making EA after doing some testing and playing vs 1EyedJacks but I wanted to discuss some of the changes I'm planning on making here so that I can get feedback. Many of the changes I'm planning on making are immutable but those are most of the minor ones. Some of the more major ones ( maximum ceiling changes etc ) are open for discussion as their impacts could be major with unanticipated sequelae.


So, here's the changes:

Air:
1. Ki-264 to be introduced in mid-42. This won't quite be the Amerika Bomber as it will trade range for payload. Concept is that the Japanese got wind of this from the Germans in 1940 and paid for some jigs, research and plans.

Variants:
a) Ki-264R - Maritime reconnaissance variant with no bombs but huge range ( should be something like 90 hexes - 24 hrs x cruising speed )
b) Ki-264A - Strategic bomber.
c) G9M - naval aviation version of Ki-264 carrying multiple 18" torpedoes. I think this would fit in well with the IJN penchant for weapons systems which could fight in the final battle. Right now it looks to me like a Ki-264 would be able to carry up to 4 x 18inch torpedoes out to combat range.
d) Ki-264O - Late-war Ohka carrier. Basically an upgrade which swaps the bombload vs land targets for 2 x Ohkas and extra defensive armament.


2. Ki-44 II armed with 20mm cannon and not some 40mm POS. Also a Ki-44 III for carrier-based action as this proved so effective in EA.


3. Ki-45/102 development continuing towards a B-25J type twin-engined plane with Level 2 armour and significant forward-firing, centre-mounted armament. These planes would obviously make excellent bomber interceptors also.


4. Review of all plane ceilings with a view to reducing them all to 25,000 feet as that is equivalent to maximum combat altitude. Only exceptions might be a very small number of reconnaissance planes, jet fighters which really did use their higher ceilings and climb to great effect in combat and a few bombers which were designed to fly above enemy fighters and thus warrant being given the ability to fly at >25,000 feet.


5. Possibility of producing Fw-190A and FW-190F variants in Japan in 42 and 44 respectively.


6. A general movement towards earlier entry into service dates for planes of both sides.


7. Removal of free auto-upgrades except within plane types. E.g. A6M2 will still upgrade to A6M5 etc but no longer will the A6M8 upgrade to A7M etc.


8. Creation of a US production centre which is NOT in CONUSA but, instead, in the safe convoy lanes off-map such that the Allies can, by devoting a significant amount of production and shipping, drop enough supplies at this base that it can repair factories and increase production of planes currently in service.

In order to keep the cost of production high I intend to create a massive garrison requirement and a massive, immobile unit at this base ( an island ). This unit could have a supply requirement of 30,000 tons per month. This would mean that the Allies would have to ship 30,000 tons of supply per month in order to avoid the unit suffering disablements, dropping beneath the garrison requirement and the factories being damaged. It would also mean that if you wanted to repair 30 factories per month you'd have to ship in 60,000 tons of supply per month.

Those figures are just for example's sake. The idea is though to give the Allies a mechanism whereby they can boost plane production but ONLY if they divert a significant part of their merchant marine/supply production to that goal. It is intended to model the opportunity cost of those planes... If you build more planes you have less shipping at the front and less supplies there also.

Personally I think the "break even" point for the Allies should be a requirement to ship in 100,000 tons of supplies per month as that would require the committment of some 200,000 tons of shipping * perhaps 30 or so large xAKs * on a full-time basis. If you want to build the factories then you might need to commit an additional 10 xAKs in order to do so. As the Allied AK fleet increases I can change the TO&E of the defence force in order to scale up its requirement for supplies so that the investment required remains non-trivial ( 40 x AKs in 1944 is something the Allies would hardly notice ).

9. Early-war Allied forces will have an increased pool of replacements planes etc.

10. A total review of pilot training. Right now it looks to me as though both sides have massive numbers of barely trained pilots graduating. I think both sides might be better served by having fewer pilots graduate but having those pilots be more combat-ready. It would also help the HI-starved Japanese.


Sea:

1. IJN more focused on anti-air defence and air warfare with Yamatos converted to CVAs and a large conversion programme if the Japanese commander invests in it.

2. More standardisation of mounts and fewer "revenge weapons" onboard ships masquerading as AAA defence.

3. USN will get many more Midways and CA and CV respawning.

4. Specialised CA-AAA IJN units will be built as CVA escorts.


Land:

1. Removal of perma-restriction.

2. Soviets active from Day 1. Usage can be negotiated between players.

3. Increase in political points granted to allow smoother flow of units between theatres.

4. IJA standardises on better anti-tank guns using technology derived from the Germans and by war's end the IJA is fielding 75mm PaK 40s as well as dual role 88s. In the real war they asked for info re: PaK40s, 88s and the 105 and 128mm AAA guns the Germans had.

5. More CD units for the IJN.

6. US adopts a more Japan-centric approach as Japan's build-up has been noticed and soon after the start of the war a US parachute division, an armoured division and another Army division are available. After 1942 there's a greater ramp-up in US forces such that the US Army is significantly stronger by 1944/45.

7. Greater fortifications already built up in the Phillipines and increased training and stockpiling of supplies makes the Phillipines a tougher nut to crack. Greater fortification/development of some of the Pacific Islands and, again, stockpiling of supplies.

8. NO A bombs. The US, instead, decides to invest in more conventional weapons and gets additional army divisions, CVs etc as a result.

9. Total review of Allied squad replacement rates. These can be expected to increase significantly, particularly British, Australian and Chinese replacement rates will increase. Chinese replacement rates of >800 infantry squads per month can be expected. My view is that if the supplies etc are available then a Japan which was clearly arming itself for war would have resulted in increased troop training etc.

Well, that's the gist for now. I have a turn in the inbox so I'm going to take care of that now.

[chesmart]

The best Alternative War Mod for WITP is coming to AE ! way to go Nemo. It would be interesting to see how the air model changes.

[Shark7]

Nemo, unless it has been adressed in one of the patches, if you activate Soviets from day 1, the Japanese player will be completely unable to use aicraft to attack Soviet ships or bases. I ran into that when I tried it.

[Texas D]

Sounds great. Allied production would be a great feature if you can find a good median so that its not super easy to obtain a great increase in production. Looking forward to the air ceiling modifications. Also what scenario will you be using for the base (1 or 2)? Will you give the Japs the 21st Army? Whats the reason behind allowing Allied CV and CA respawn?

[Nemo121]

Texas D,

Well the aim behind the mod is to make Japan stronger in 41 and 42, give the Allies their lead in late 42/43, bring things back into being even for 43, in the allies favour in 44 and then give the Japanese enough new weapons to fight a really good defensive war in late 44/45.

Respawning CVs and CAs means that even a disastrous 42 can give way to a good 44/45.

I intend to use Scen 2 as a base... It contains some increased IJN preparations and so fits my story... but I'll bump up the Allied defences too as IJN preparations wouldn't have gone unnoticed.

I'm quite looking forward to using the conversion capability in the game to create some interesting what ifs for the IJN and USN to allow players to mould their forces as they see fit.


Shark 7,
I'll have to test that. It plagued my WiTP game of EA but I thought it would have been fixed in AE... If it remains that way then I'll have to figure out the Soviet activation hex and have an IJN unit spawn there on turn 1 or something. Thanks for the info.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Texas D,

Well the aim behind the mod is to make Japan stronger in 41 and 42, give the Allies their lead in late 42/43, bring things back into being even for 43, in the allies favour in 44 and then give the Japanese enough new weapons to fight a really good defensive war in late 44/45.

Respawning CVs and CAs means that even a disastrous 42 can give way to a good 44/45.

I intend to use Scen 2 as a base... It contains some increased IJN preparations and so fits my story... but I'll bump up the Allied defences too as IJN preparations wouldn't have gone unnoticed.

I'm quite looking forward to using the conversion capability in the game to create some interesting what ifs for the IJN and USN to allow players to mould their forces as they see fit.


Shark 7,
I'll have to test that. It plagued my WiTP game of EA but I thought it would have been fixed in AE... If it remains that way then I'll have to figure out the Soviet activation hex and have an IJN unit spawn there on turn 1 or something. Thanks for the info.

I can't say I've tested it since patch 3 because I haven't, but as of Patch 2, I could not get day 1 Soviet Activation to work right. Hope you have better luck than I did.

[Andy Mac]

Nemo as a base I would set 25 pounders up to 30 per month before you make any adjustments its on my list to modify Scen 1 and 2 if we ever do another data patch.

I know you have your own ship names but I added a lot for both sides respectivelly in the Ironman (Japanese) and Ironman Allied Scens.

Something else that may help is if some key types used by all CW nations can be shared

i.e. have 1 Spitfire VB and allow all RAF/RAAF/RNZAF to upgrade to it.

Maybe allow some sqns to draw from US aircraft in the same way that sone US BG's can draw from Dutch B25's

You may also want to look at providing some one off aircraft injections for the allies via Convoys

That functionality came in to late to be used in masters beyond invasion reinforcments but is a good way to give timed aircraft injections

[Texas D]

I didnt notice this the first time I browsed the OP

Land:
1. Removal of perma-restriction

That would open tons of new options even with the standard rule of purchasing them out. I cant wait to have a look at this mod.

[1EyedJacks]

I'd like to add some suggestions/thoughts if I may.

Additional Engineer units with Aviation points would be nice to have. I dunno if you can do it, but if you could set up a few units that are something akin to Infantry Divisions, where the Japanese player could break down a unit into 1/3s and rebuild again - that'd be something.

Additional HQ units for providing TB/Betty/Nell with torpedoes.

If you're gunna add planes then I'd add a few more base slots for building airframes and engines.

Allow fairly easy cross-over paths between Fighter/Fighter-Bomber/Night-Fighters and then use pilot training to make up the difference in mission effectiveness.

More DB units and/or the ability for Lite Bombers like Sonia/Ida/Mary/Ann to convert to Vals.

A lot of air units seem to have options to expand/shrink based on a date flag. Is there anyway to give both sides control of sizr for air units? Say 12/27/36/48 for options on setting the size of most air units?

Right now PBs cannot be used in the auto-convoy system. I've been testing this along with CS TFs in our game and so far the auto-convoy feature is not half bad. Additional escort ships that work with the auto-convoy system would be nice.

I like the sub warfare as is but with 1 exception - those mini-subs. They should be stronger in small ports and weaker in large ports to simulate harbor defenses in an established large port.

More tankers or maybe the ability for more AK to convert to tankers? And I'd bump up the amount of fuel that xAK can carry. Currently the limit seems to be 300 tons of fuel for those xAK that can carry fuel. With the additions you've mentioned to Japan's naval forces the Japanese player would welcome greater capacity and additional tankers.

Allow some of the Japanese BBs to convert to CVs.

Allow some of the Japanese CAs to convert to anti-aircraft platforms or pocket battleships.

Allow some subs to convert to long-legged subs, mini-sub carriers, or mine layers.

If you're gunna toss in bombers with longer legs - how about some longer-legged fighters for Japan? Maybe tied to drop tanks or something?

How about some long-range transport aircraft (varient of the Ki-264?) with enough load capacity that they don't leave any fragments behind?

I know folks are a little unhappy with Artillery but I feel they are pulling the teeth from those big guns. I've served on 8" and 155 SP units. If someone masses 10-15 regiments of arty against a defended target there's gunna be hamburger on the menu for dinner - and that's just a fact. Especially of they fill a base with 100,000 troops in the damned base. Is there anyway to tie effectiveness of artillery to terrain? In open terrain and bases artillery should kick butt and take names. It will be much less effective in jungle and heavy woods. Arty are by nature soft targets. They should take more damage from counter battery fire or from enemy DB when in unfortified terrain.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I'd like to add some suggestions/thoughts if I may.


Right now PBs cannot be used in the auto-convoy system. I've been testing this along with CS TFs in our game and so far the auto-convoy feature is not half bad. Additional escort ships that work with the auto-convoy system would be nice.

This should be available now according to the current beta patch.

41. Gameplay Change: Added PB to list of ships eligible for Auto Convoy.

[FatR]

Unless Japanese ground forces are boosted in some way, at least by reducing garrison requirements, they will be steamrolled in 1942 by Soviets and improved Chinese alone. Soviets probably need to be toned down, if they activate automatically, their current stats seem to be geared towards punishing players heavily for draining Manchukou of troops. In particular, stats for old fighters and experience levels everywhere are too high.

[ny59giants]

I got Juan to significantly change the TO&E of Construction units (12) and Independent Engineer Rgt (20) amount of Engineer Vehicles. This may not sound like much, but increasing the number of bulldozers allows Japan to expand bases quicker and build forts.

I would increase the number of squadron or daitai of patrol search planes. Recon and intel of your opponent is key.

[Andy Mac]

Be carefull what you do with TOE changes if you want it to work with the AI - maybe better to put new units in place which the AI will more or less ignore

[Nemo121]

Ah there were a few bits I didn't make as explicit as I should have...

1. IJA forces will get more bulldozers in their engineer units.

2. I don't want more Air HQs as the more you have the less thinking you have to do and EA isn't about giving people everything they want. It is about giving people options and LOTS of traps to fall in whereby if they don't think things through thoroughly they'll destroy themselves.

3. A few IJA super-engineer units with huge numbers of bulldozers etc. These won't be on-map at the start of the game so if you want them you'll have to have a significant investment in troops.

4. Ki-264T- transport version, yes, that'll be in.

5. Changes to game code to include altitude differential checks. This is a mod, I don't have access to the game code so I can't do this. I have suggested it would be a really good thing to add but it is up to the developers to add it or ignore it.

6. FatR, well I expect that the situation vs the Soviets will be sorted out by player-negotiated rules re: employment OR a quid pro quo where the freeing up of the Soviets will result in x USN CVs being berthed for y months.

7. Mines, I think mines were important and so am going to trust players not to go crazy with them. I am going to increase the number of mine-laying subs and mine production.

8. AndyMac, I'd appreciate if you could send me a list of proposed improvements to Allied replacement rates for their ground forces... I fully intend to improve their replacement rates and bring some of the Indian divisions in at full strength as opposed to just husks. Again this would be predicated on the belief that once Germany declared war Japan wouldn't be too far behind and thus the British would have created more Indian Divisions.

9. IJAAF and IJNAF will be much more integrated.

10. I will do away with the situation where a given plane has different replacement rates for different countries. E.g. P40E having different replacement rates for Dutch, Aussis and US squadrons. There will be one P-40E replacement rate. Same for the other planes. That ought to give some much-needed flexibility back to the Allies.

11. 1EyedJacks... Sadly the mini-sub idea ( which is a good one ) is something which would require code changes and so there's nothing I can do about it.

12. Hamburger, yes. 2,500 men worth of hamburger per day, no. [:D] My goal is to upgrade to the beta and then the official patch and not release until I've had a some time with the official patch. I'll see how arty works in the official patch and take things from there. If it is underpowered I'll look at changing it but right now it is definitely over-powered.

[1EyedJacks]

Arty - probably more then you wanted to know...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0FbGuImTCE


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-79986782247895957&ei=Ew2OS4m1OqC6rALppsFP&q=artillery&hl=en#

[Nemo121]

Aye, all very impressive and loud and it definitely did cause most casualties during the war.... but that's a matter of the daily grind of harrassing fires and the occasional barrage on men in the open plus suppressive fire on defensive positions. MY issue occurs when a couple of hundred medium to large bore tubes cause several thousand casualties per day. I think that it isn't so much the number of casualties which is wrong but
1. the number of tubes
2. supply consumed in order to cause those casualties
3. the troops are fortfied ( level 2 and 3 forts for the main part )
4. terrain is advantageous for the defence and thus I would suggest there be a downward modifier.

Let's not forget that today a couple of dozen tubes could easily cause this many casualties but in WW2 arty had a lot more difficulty getting kills than it does if properly spotted today. Each individual shell nowadays is significantly more likely to hit the target, be TOT and significantly, individually more lethal.