A few suggestions

[sveint]

- Air units attacking Armor units should add one die (more historical)
- Air units attacking Infantry or Militia units should substract one die (more historical)
- If Japan attacks USSR, USA is unfrozen (game balance)
- Make it cheaper to catch up in technology (game balance)
- Remove all "fortified" areas (why are they in the game ???)
- Give neutral countries like Afghanistan units (that's NOT an easy country to take)
- If China re-conquers a coastal territory is should gain back normal production rates (historical)

and finally

- Give us a way to mod the AI (as if that's going to happen...)

Love the game. Let's make it better.

[PeterF]

Is this in addition to the patch thread?

Anyway,

-Remove the endgame 'Fortress Ruhr' phenomenon by making the only the fall of EAST Germany determine Nazi surrender.
-And many other things.....

This game strikes me as being somehere between beta and release. But in a good way.[;)]

[carnifex]

- Remove all "fortified" areas (why are they in the game ???)

I don't understand. You justify three requests by saying they would be historical. Well, Sevastopol was a fortress, it was historical. Singapore was a fortress, it was historical. Etc.

- Air units attacking Armor units should add one die (more historical)
- Air units attacking Infantry or Militia units should substract one die (more historical)

Are you saying that an Infantry division is twice as hard to bomb and strafe than an Armored one?

[sveint]

Are you saying that an Infantry division is twice as hard to bomb and strafe than an Armored one?

Tanks are easier to bomb than infantry, yes. It's all but impossible to hide tanks from aircraft, and all but impossible to "destroy" and infantry army by air attack.

Oh and I thought the patch thread was for bugs/interface improvements? Am I wrong... didn't read it.

[sveint]

On fortresses... the only one on a scale to merit inclusion in the game (in my opinion of course) is the Maginot line. Of course that one is not in the game... West Germany was NOT fortified exensively, the "forts" in Singapore were a joke... etc

[Grotius]

Well, there was the Siegfried Line in West Germany. I admit it wasn't exactly the Maginot Line, but then neither was the Maginot Line. As for Singapore, it was somewhat fortified; it's a level 6 fort in "War in the Pacific," and I've never heard anyone contend that it should be lower there. Gibraltar most certainly was fortified; that place is quite literally a rock. It's a terrific place to visit, but I imagine it would have been very difficult to assault.

[Dalwin]

One comment on the idea of making it easier to catch up when behind technologically:

It is often not the matching tech that you are looking to catch up in but the opposing tech. In other words, if the WA is producing advanced heavy bombers, it is not heavy bombers that Germany wants but flak.

This means taht something such as cutting your upgrade cost in half if the enemy is more than 2 levels ahead in something will, in some areas, do little or nothing to rebalance the technical situation.

Another example would be ASW.

[pyrhic]

I think there are a few places that could be considered fortified for this game; sevastopol, maginot, gibraltar - but yeah, west germany wasn't in comparison. I think one test is what the real combatants found about them (which is why i wouldnt add singapore)...

[Dalwin]

I think that fortress W Germany exists mainly as a play balance aid rather than to represent literal fortifications. Without it, Germany would have to keep a medium/large garrison in Germany itself through the entire war to avoid a cheapshot invasion.

I disagree with Germany surrendering or collapsing when E. Germany falls.

What I would like to see, however, is that if E. Germany falls the fortification in W. Germany is changed back to being a normal port. This would give Germany protection against invasions early in the war that would not have been feasible and yet does not allow them to form a superfortress at the end. This would also give them more incentive to defend both halves of Germany.

[PeterF]

disagree with Germany surrendering or collapsing when E. Germany falls.

What I would like to see, however, is that if E. Germany falls the fortification in W. Germany is changed back to being a normal port. This would give Germany protection against invasions early in the war that would not have been feasible and yet does not allow them to form a superfortress at the end. This would also give them more incentive to defend both halves of Germany.

Your idea, while not bad, requires new programming. We should keep these suggestions within the realm of the possible.
Germany heavily defended the eastern half of the country in 45. A poster usefully documented this force imbalance in another thread. The German player should be responsible enough to maintain a significant garrison in Berlin. If the coding were practical I'd vote for the loss of Berlin triggering surrender only after 1/1/45. If not, the loss of W Germany should have no effect other than the (considerable) economic one.

[Dalwin]

While I agree that this would require new programming and therefor is not something the players can mod. We are talking about a very small amount of programming, certainly within the realm of being patchable rather than something that would take a complete rewrite of a major game component.

[JagdFlanker]

i would think now would be the best time to ask for 'code fixes', as the programmers are currently already 'elbow deep' in code to make the new patches, and i'm sure in a year the final patch will have long been released!!

[Andrew Brown]

On fortresses... the only one on a scale to merit inclusion in the game (in my opinion of course) is the Maginot line. Of course that one is not in the game...

Is this corrct? The Maginot Line is not depicted in the game? (I ask because I have yet to buy this game).

[traemyn]

its not depicted b/c on the first turn its a given that you take France through Netherlands and then Vichy France emerges..

-there are forces in E. France but its not given any special "fortified" properties

its still an option to invade France but you would have to be competely insane not to b/c its so easy [:D]

[pyrhic]

good point, i was thinking the same thing after i posted. I wonder how many first round wins the beta testers went through before needing to add fortress West Germany? [:)]

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

On fortresses... the only one on a scale to merit inclusion in the game (in my opinion of course) is the Maginot line. Of course that one is not in the game...

Is this corrct? The Maginot Line is not depicted in the game? (I ask because I have yet to buy this game).

It is totally moot point. Germany is supposed to take France on first turn in 85% of games. And supposed to attack through Low Countries (not Maginot) in 100% of games.

There are only 6 fortified regions in the game - Gibraltar, Malta, Leningrad, North Italy, Sevastopol, West Germany. They are fortified more or less for gameplay purposes (I guess, don't take my word for granted). Having Malta and Gib as "fortresses" at this scale, would suggest they are fortified just to make them harder to conquer, and relatively easy to defend with small forces (as was done historically).

Frankly, I could live with no regions being fortified at all, at this scale, though I don't think it influences the gameplay much, either way.

O.

[PeterF]

There are only 6 fortified regions in the game - Gibraltar, Malta, Leningrad, North Italy, Sevastopol, West Germany. They are fortified more or less for gameplay purposes

And Hong Kong and Singapore are NOT? Hmmmm.... I fear that in WaW, given the scale and lacking active hex 'sides', the fortified area concept seems rather vestigial. In W Germany, for example, only the left side of the area, the Siegfried Line, should be deemed thus.

A suggestion for the upcoming Civil War sim: enable fortified zones inside- and independent of- areas. Thus you'd have the fortified city of Harpers Ferry inside the Shenandoah Valley area- or something like that. Or Vicksburg. A player controls a zone but not the smaller entity inside the zone- which may require a siege.

[PeterF]

While I agree that this would require new programming and therefor is not something the players can mod.

Actually this is easily modded in the data files. IIRC, the surrender of Germany sis triggered the loss of areas 66 and 67. This change would work in PBEMs but may require some modified coding for solo play so the AI doesn't pile up in the west.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: PeterF

There are only 6 fortified regions in the game - Gibraltar, Malta, Leningrad, North Italy, Sevastopol, West Germany. They are fortified more or less for gameplay purposes

And Hong Kong and Singapore are NOT?

Singapore wasn't fortified from the landward side as we all know. In the game it's not easy to wrestle it from the hands of British already as it is.

O.

[hakon]

I dont think the forts mean so much this way or the other. I tend to agree that west germany should not be fortified (though it is absolutely stuffed with cities, which would make it a lot easier to defend than eastern germany, if the germans had put any significant force into it).

The suggestion regarding air vs ground is ver valid, though, in my opinion. Using air vs moving infantry (interdiction) can be rather effective, but vs dug in infantry, the only thing air can do is to kill the supply trains an ammo depots. (Which is well simulated by reducing evasion by 1.)

Dive bombers and fighters are very effective vs tanks, on the other hand. Attacking with tanks in clear daylight weather is pretty much out of the question if the enemy has airial superiority irl. Strategic bombers should be penalized vs all ground units, but should get a bonus vs infrastructure, supply and airfield bombing.

This would complicate the system though, and make the manual invalid, so i have a feeling we will not see this.