Suggestions

[Picohertz]

I have been playing this game for a little while now (thank you Matrix) and have seen a few things that I have suggestions over. I don’t know whether or not anyone has noticed this or not, or if these changes are possible, but nonetheless here goes. (if these have been discussed, forgive me I'm new)

Could the game be made to have the fog of war effects take place for the headquarters? I can always see the enemy headquarters no matter how far away it is. While this is very good for me as it allows me to track where the enemy air force is at, I think it is not realistic.

Also could the air force be assigned a readiness number like the infantry divisions have? Just some percentage that tells me how many planes I can expect to fly if I ask it to perform a mission. As I see it, if the player knows the percentage of readiness for the infantry, then the same information should hold true for the air units.

About the Soviets moving the factories. As the factory is moved using rail, then it makes sense that if the rail line is cut leading to a city, then the ability to move the factory (even if it has some supply) should be lost. As it is now, if you have a city and that cities rail lines are cut, but it still has some supply, then it can use “rail” to move it out to the Urals. I think the rule should be that you have to have adequate rail, and a active rail line running from the city in order for the factory to be moved.

Would it be possible for the general’s number/rating to be altered some? For example: Have one defense number the general is assigned and one offense number assigned. Making some generals better at certain things at different times during the war. It would make placing the right man for the job so to say quite interesting.

Might it be possible for the generals rating to move up or down similar to how the infantries experience does? What I mean by this is that if say Model is the commander of several armies and those armies start to take heavy loses and lose ground, then his lack of good generalship would cause his rating to go down (over a long length of time). Conversely a poor general who starts off winning battles and doing so with low casualties might have his rating rise. I was thinking this would add some flair to the game. I think it would be realistic also, as we base the ratings these generals have on what they did in the war. As we are re-fighting the war, then those men’s experiences are going to be vastly different.

Anyhow thanks for listening and a big thanks to Matrix for the updates.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Picohertz:
Could the game be made to have the fog of war effects take place for the headquarters?

Well, the problem with this idea is that air groups are assigned to HQs, and HQs should not be invisible to aircraft because the HQ is something of an abstract construction. When looking at units assigned to an HQ, they are not literally all in one square, and that goes for air groups as well. The ground units might deserve the chance of not being spotted, but air forces usually have no problems finding the air fields of their enemy.

Also could the air force be assigned a readiness number like the infantry divisions have?

It does have an internal readiness and the request to let the player see the readiness value is on the "issues" list of the beta group.

About the Soviets moving the factories. As the factory is moved using rail, then it makes sense that if the rail line is cut leading to a city, then the ability to move the factory (even if it has some supply) should be lost.

I thought that was fixed. Your right, its now on the buglist.

Would it be possible for the general’s number/rating to be altered some? For example: Have one defense number the general is assigned and one offense number assigned. Making some generals better at certain things at different times during the war. It would make placing the right man for the job so to say quite interesting.

This has been discussed, and the idea is on the issues list.

Might it be possible for the generals rating to move up or down similar to how the infantries experience does? What I mean by this is that if say Model is the commander of several armies and those armies start to take heavy loses and lose ground, then his lack of good generalship would cause his rating to go down (over a long length of time). Conversely a poor general who starts off winning battles and doing so with low casualties might have his rating rise. I was thinking this would add some flair to the game. I think it would be realistic also, as we base the ratings these generals have on what they did in the war. As we are re-fighting the war, then those men’s experiences are going to be vastly different.

Arnaud is interested in making the leaders play a bigger role, but this is probably a lot of work for little gain. What Arnaud has already done, has improved things, but things like an aggression rating are still on the table.

Besides, leadership ratings for generals based on the performance of their Armies in combat would just mean all German generals would be at level 9 by the winter of '41, and all Soviet leaders would be at 8 or 9 by the beginning of '45. There are many times when the best leaders lose because of forces beyond their control, and the Eastern Front was so massive a scale that those failures occurred often.

[RickyB]

Also, regarding the number of airplanes that fly in combat, it is at least in part, if not totally, based on a random chance related to the weather, with fewer planes flying in bad weather. Thus, it will vary from combat to combat, unlike a number strictly based on readiness. Restart the same turn over and you will see different numbers of planes fly, especially in bad weather.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by RickyB:
Also, regarding the number of airplanes that fly in combat, it is at least in part, if not totally, based on a random chance related to the weather, with fewer planes flying in bad weather. Thus, it will vary from combat to combat, unlike a number strictly based on readiness. Restart the same turn over and you will see different numbers of planes fly, especially in bad weather.

This is true in bad weather, one turn you get a bunch next turn you get only a dozen planes to show up. In clear weather however, what you get on one turn is close to what you got the last turn, at least for things like airfield attacks. The numbers vary some based on how much air group readiness is lost on ground support between turns, and whether the distance between attacker and defender has changed. The weirdness of how many German planes intercept western strategic bombing is a seperate problem.

A German HQ on a player directed air mission for example can get 69 fighters to show up in an attack, get 67 the next turn, and 63 the next turn, and so on. Although dropping every turn, the numbers remain consistent.

[Picohertz]

Thanks for the replies and the explanations. I understand about the HQs better now. I was thinking for a while it was meaning that all those planes are at one big airbase in the hex someplace. But now I know what the games means with it. One more suggestion I came up with. I noticed that the Ju52 transport plane can not be selected for ‘Training’. All other plane types can be, perhaps an oversight? Anyhow thanks a bunch.

[SoleSurvivor]

It makes sense somehow. Though intelligence could rarely get right info about exact number and layout of rear troops they surely could detect at least if there *is* a larger formation. Maybe rear HQ should be grayed (to show they are spotted by intelligence or unreliable recon) and some should be hidden/some fakes should be shown.

[Mist]

Originally posted by Picohertz:
One more suggestion I came up with. I noticed that the Ju52 transport plane can not be selected for ‘Training’. All other plane types can be, perhaps an oversight? Anyhow thanks a bunch.

It was deliberately done by Gary. The reason was: how they can train to deliver supplies?
So it is not oversight. I can argue that though. If exists experience of transport groups, then this experience was achieved in some way. If this experience decreases with ariving of green replacements and increases after successfull missions, then it should be possible to assign transport groups to training. May be I am wrong.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mist:
If this experience decreases with ariving of green replacements and increases after successfull missions, then it should be possible to assign transport groups to training. May be I am wrong.

I agree, transports should be allowed to train, but with an upper limit so that to get really good you have to do the real thing for awhile. Look at the Berlin Airlift in '48. It started out a desparate attempt just to keep the West Berliners from starving, to the point where the now large and complex operation was working so well, no one starved, and they could even bring in luxuries and take "special orders" for delivery later, so to speak.

[Picohertz]

I got a few questions about things. If the player transfers an infantry division into a HQ then those air groups inside the HQ are unable to fly any player directed missions for that turn. Is this being a bit too strict? The way I see it, those air groups are independent of the infantry division and should still be able to fly for that turn regardless of who was transferred in.

This happens to me during my first turn in the 41 campaign as the Germans. For example, I sometimes try to surround the pocket of divisions around the city of Bialystok using the 39 and 47 Panzer corps. Letting the German infantry starting on the 4th plot to attack the now surrounded Soviets. Everything goes as planned except the Soviet units shatter instead of surrender. Even though they have no escape route they retreat overtop of one another till they shatter. Granted the difference between the shatter and surrender is not going to be huge, I was still wondering if others have noticed that. If so, is this right?

Thanks.

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Picohertz:
I got a few questions about things. If the player transfers an infantry division into a HQ then those air groups inside the HQ are unable to fly any player directed missions for that turn. Is this being a bit too strict? The way I see it, those air groups are independent of the infantry division and should still be able to fly for that turn regardless of who was transferred in.

This happens to me during my first turn in the 41 campaign as the Germans. For example, I sometimes try to surround the pocket of divisions around the city of Bialystok using the 39 and 47 Panzer corps. Letting the German infantry starting on the 4th plot to attack the now surrounded Soviets. Everything goes as planned except the Soviet units shatter instead of surrender. Even though they have no escape route they retreat overtop of one another till they shatter. Granted the difference between the shatter and surrender is not going to be huge, I was still wondering if others have noticed that. If so, is this right?

Thanks.

I don't think anybody likes the problem with doing things with the HQ causing problems with follow on air usage. I don't think there is a good reason for it, an irritating bug I think.

The shatter versus surrender problem has been discussed before. Part of the problem is for the game to figure out on the fly if there is any path to the main lines. Also, as someone has stated before, it is partly reasonable to have a new pocket "leak" part of the units cutoff and destroyed, as the game is played in turns but reality would be simultaneous, so some men and equipment would escape before the pocket closes. The amount of equipment resurrected in shatters was reduced so it is fairly reasonable, but still probably too much in my mind.

[Dan in Toledo]

I agree with Ricky B. Not all pockets that were totally cutoff had 100% POWs. Some units would shatter and try to make their way east back to the Russian lines.