Fixing GD 1938

[cpdeyoung]

What I mean by monthly research is that the units do not become available to research all at once in January.

If the PzIVG showed up in March 1942 in real life then this would be the date in the game that research is possible. Optional the player may spend PP to advance this a bit, one or two months maximum I think is realistic. If this is too difficult this can be waived.

This would not change the game a lot, but would be a bit more realistic, and would spread PP spending out.

Chuck

[ernieschwitz]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

What I mean by monthly research is that the units do not become available to research all at once in January.

If the PzIVG showed up in March 1942 in real life then this would be the date in the game that research is possible. Optional the player may spend PP to advance this a bit, one or two months maximum I think is realistic. If this is too difficult this can be waived.

This would not change the game a lot, but would be a bit more realistic, and would spread PP spending out.

Chuck

Yeah I see what you mean. At the moment it is programmed so that it has one event pr. batch of techs released. Making 12 times the number of events that is already in that part of the code seems impractical. However maybe a smarter way of coding it could be introduced. I´ll look into it. But it is not high on the list.

Yours
Claus / Ernieschwitz

[Bombur]

Going to historical research is somewhat complex. I´m doing it in Bombur mod, but I went to auto research, you get the historical units in the historical time. If you want all the units to appear in the year/Month they were ready IRL it´s possible, but it´s also unrealistic since the ability to research depends on the amount of resources you have. If Germany kept its empire intact until 1945, they would have been able to produce lots of advanced units. If the USSR remained neutral in WW2, it was possible that Stalin would have implemented its ambitious naval expansion plans, including 60.000 ton battlehips. We decided to allow some flexibility to players, units can appear 1-2 years before the time they appeared in history. I don´t think the game would improve with a more rigid approach.

[ironduke1955]

On Experience : This is the issue I think most important. There is too wide a range of experience, and morale. At the division level there are always new men. This is because all armed conflict involves losses on both sides. This may not be true of elite squads against raw, barely trained squads, but at divisional levels bullets fly both ways. In ATG it is possible to have elite divisions that take no battle losses, and with each success this result becomes more likely. This makes counter-attacking counter-productive (I could not resist the phrase). Those who only play the attacking powers might not realize how tough this is on the Soviet player, for example. Since this is an ATG issue I think we need something like "superior doctrines" to address the width of the experience-morale-losses gap. I think 2-1, 3-1 should be the widest it gets. Now it is more like 5-1, even 10-1. In real life defenders tend to learn more from defeats than the attackers learn from victories, but that is not currently reflected in the simulation. If we had a mechanism to address this issue it would help I think. Perhaps another "superior training" dose, one that came with combat rather than being bought. Men exiting basic training in 1942 had learned new techniques than those of 1938. I have no problem with the Germans having an edge on the Soviets, but not such a large edge. The wear and tear of attacking just is lost in this model. Do not make the mistake of thinking it is a German-Soviet problem. Once any nation starts on the downhill slope the 10-1, 20-1 range makes the slope too steep. It can be hard to realize the problem unless you are on the wrong side of it. Chuck

I find the Soviets currently overpowered if you look at the quantities of losses the Soviets are able to sustain KV1 heavy tanks 200+ getting near 4 times the German losses,
if well used the Germans can do well on the Russian front, if they are not they will be crushed with ease, if every time the Germans Soviets or any other power do not perform as well a player believes they should,
we make alterations to make them more powerful, then we will be creating a imbalance in the game, the MOD designers can only aim for a realistic representation of German and Soviets forces and leave it to the players to fight it out.

I have played the Soviets several times and never found the Axis forces to be to powerful.

The main element to German failure was the winter it was the levelling of the playing field,
a loss of mobility and unpreparedness for winter warfare effected Germans forces and caused catastrophic losses to the Germans losses they never really recovered from,
that and bad decisions led to their defeat. As we don't have weather particularly Mud and Snow,
were the German advantages could be suspended, lets face it these advantages amount to only a 15% modification in combats, is it possible to alter this German modification for winter months.

And I might add that the effects of the winter and autumn could have been mitigated by the Germans, to inflict the same casualties on the Germans is to presume that the player would reach the same level of professional incompetence as the Germans historical Leader.

[ironduke1955]

GD1938 221V-2

Just reading the preamble in the game Brief and General

"I'll begin about fighter interception, chances are generally low"

Can you just confirm the interception rates for the new build 221V-2 please

Just a minor bug

The FW190-f is shown on the production list for the Germans when you try and build the FW190-f you get the generic Fighter Bomber II

[ernieschwitz]

Its the briefing that is wrong. It wasn't changed by bombur, and I changed it for v 221x.

[Bombur]

I can fix the Fw-190F for 2.21x....

[Bombur]

Fw-190F bug fixed. Sent my file to our game 23 folder and also a copy to Claus in our joint folder.

[Twotribes]

RPG-1 does not appear on list of sfts that can be assigned to TOE units.

[Twotribes]

Ok figured it out they upgrade from AT rifles.

[cpdeyoung]

GD 1938 Game 23.

The United States does not have "light blue cards" to examine what nations currently have the most influence with a neutral.

Do the rest of you have them?

This feature is necessary.

Chuck

[ironduke1955]

Sure I remember seeing and using investigate minor in the Germans turn.

[ernieschwitz]

This is strange, Chuck, I will investigate this ...

[ernieschwitz]

I found a bug, thanks Chuck, it could cause alot of strange behavior. Among others the non-existance of a investigate minor card for USA. I have loaded up a new version of GD 1938 to the scenario bank, it is v221y.

Thanks for helping out. I recommend a restart, sorry, my fault.

[Khanti]

ORIGINAL: Hanti

I am a completly newbie to this mod, so my suggestions are simple:
- supply truck carry 5 supplies but consumes 15 - should it be opposite?
(...)

Version GD1938v221y.atzip - STILL
I think most people do not use Supply Trucks for supply units ... or they do not care of wasting supplies

PS: Anyway I would just set it as 20 carried supplies and 5 consumed (5x carried by Horses)

Second thing:
Declare War (tested as France vs human regimes). Are you sure? Yes/No. I choose NO. War is declared

[ernieschwitz]

Second thing:
Declare War (tested as France vs human regimes). Are you sure? Yes/No. I choose NO. War is declared

That is a bug Vic should be told about, cause its in his program, not mine.

[ernieschwitz]

Version GD1938v221y.atzip - STILL
I think most people do not use Supply Trucks for supply units ... or they do not care of wasting supplies

PS: Anyway I would just set it as 20 carried supplies and 5 consumed (5x carried by Horses)

Thanks for reporting. I think I will notify Bombur and ask him, if it is WAD, if not I will ask him to correct it.

[sarnold2222]

First of all, I'm GREATLY impressed with what you have done with this mod.
My comment is not actually something that is wrong with the game, just a wish that for me would make it even better.

The map: for me personally, I would like a larger map. Maybe when you first started designing, your size was as big as ATG allowed, but Tom Weber's WaW for ATG is a fair amount larger than that for GD 1938. For me, the larger map allows more fun/flexibility with tactics.

Now I understand that expanding the map would be quite difficult, so I have no expectations that anybody would even want to put the effort in. I just thought I'd at least mention it.
But even with the pretty crowded European map in GD 1938, you've created quite a great scenario. Congratulations.

[Khanti]

Ernie, I don't know who is responsible for names/naming or just typing things in mod.
But I would like to see some names changed just for the sake of liberating me from keeping personal version of this mod

When selecting unit - it displays movement type (on the left).
But some things are not properly displayed if words are too long.
Examples: air movements of different aircrafts are different, so some are typed as "Air33" some as "Air 14" or "Air 1".
And "Air 1" is OK as it takes 5 spaces/letters but "Air 14" is also displayed in my resolution as "Air 1".
Please redo all movement names in settings/group names to 5 letters/spaces

Example:
Air33
Air5
Air50 (if "Air 50", it is displayed as "Air 5")
Wheel Fast to FastWheel (if it is displayed as "FastW" is better than "Wheel ")
Naval 3 to Nav3 (all Naval movements are displayed as "Naval" because of 5 letters rule)
Tracked Slow to STRacked (STrac)
Tracked Fast to FTracked (FTrac)

I hope you understand what I mean.

[ernieschwitz]

I understand perfectly what you mean. I will look into it. Likely change it.