TRP - Total Realism Project for War in Europe (1.10b Download)

[Taxman66]

Other 1.4 thoughts:

I'm not sure I like the idea of HQs getting 5 AP at C&C 2.

I still think AA needs some defensive (vs. land unit) nerfing.

If Mech Divs get spotting 2 (and I like this!), why not also Mech Corps?

I think Strat bombers cost should be reduced a little since they are getting reduced number of attacks.

I'd rather see/suggest lower storm damage amounts, than lower chances of getting hit by them (as implied by my reading of the text change). I'm scared witless if any ship gets damaged to 3 or lower of losing it just trying to get it back to safety.

I don't like the Sub ZOC change either. It makes it so that if they dive you can't keep looking for them.

Why would subs get increased spotting? That makes no sense, and just encourages their use as tactical naval assets (which I hate already).

I still don't like your Norway suggestion, it's way too hammery. Would have to check on how much interdiction was going on there before the Germans invaded.

[Duedman]

Again:
Just leave the subs combat stats as they were in 1.3 and simply add more Subs with weaker MPP raiding

Catching Subs is kinda fun.
No beeing able to sink them with tons of ships is infuriating.
More Subs with weaker Raiding would also make it worthwhile to actually raid the weaker routes which currently is not worthwile since you loose 1 supply regardless of how many points you raid.

I won't play a game where it gets even more frustrating to sink them.

[Lothos]

Not sure how I would feel about that.
You would be making it very tempting to for some gamey play with the Russians possibly not placing reinforcements (or at the very least not putting down Tanks and other expensive units), until after it fires against them.

Additionally the point of DEs is to make tempting options, not provide 'No Brainer'/obvious forced ones.

---
BTW, I think you are way over correcting with 1.4 sub changes.
Just taking away Heavy Cruiser and bigger ships ability to attack subs goes a very long way to correcting things (I think CLs should be able to attack subs... and I think the US should exchange 2 or 3 of those starting CLs for DDs). By additionally increasing their Dive Chance to 40% and increasing the retreat chance is going to make them near impossible to kill even later in the war (mid/late summer+) when they started becoming both a non-factor and were getting whacked with massive losses.

I been playing with the changes and I can hunt and kill subs just fine. Remember the new ZOC rule. That really makes a difference. Subs have a hard time getting away once found which is why all the changes where made.

As for a USSR player not putting his armor down. Sure they can do that but the Germans will be more than happy to keep advancing toward Moscow with little to no resistance.

[Taxman66]

Again:
Just leave the subs combat stats as they were in 1.3 and simply add more Subs with weaker MPP raiding

Catching Subs is kinda fun.
No beeing able to sink them with tons of ships is infuriating.
More Subs with weaker Raiding would also make it worthwhile to actually raid the weaker routes which currently is not worthwile since you loose 1 supply regardless of how many points you raid.

I won't play a game where it gets even more frustrating to sink them.

I'm in this camp too.

[Lothos]

Again:
Just leave the subs combat stats as they were in 1.3 and simply add more Subs with weaker MPP raiding

Catching Subs is kinda fun.
No beeing able to sink them with tons of ships is infuriating.
More Subs with weaker Raiding would also make it worthwhile to actually raid the weaker routes which currently is not worthwile since you loose 1 supply regardless of how many points you raid.

I won't play a game where it gets even more frustrating to sink them.

I'm in this camp too.

People complained when I changed movement for weeks until they started playing it and the new movement values work well with the new turn setup.

Subs under 1.3 are way to easy to kill. You may like it as an allied player but an axis player will say screw it and not build any subs.

How about we try it and then provide feedback.

[Laki]

I have been thinking a lot about the mechanics around Malta. I feel like the mod is taking great steps into making it hard for the Axis to take it, but I feel like there is an underlying problem where for Axis the problem of Malta is binary. You either need to throw everything at it and conquer it or you ignore it and accept hard times in North Africa.

I have came up with a few mechanics that could make the gameplay around Malta more interesting.

• Make the supply hit from controlling Malta scale with the amount of infrastructure Malta and or the ports have.

• Add naval raid hexes, to North African Coast so the Allies need to actually put their fleet in some danger to setup a full blockade of North Africa

These two things combined would make the control of the North African supply more nuanced:

• If the Axis player bombs Malta the Allies would need to send out Ships to keep the blockade in full effect. Even if the Axis would not be able to take Malta it would require an Allied response.

• If the Axis player completely ignores Malta the North African supply will suffer even more as the Allies can stack both Malta and raid hex penalties.

• If the Axis does want to not or cannot hit Malta with airpower they can try and keep the Allies off the raid hexes to keep supplies flowing into North Africa.

Idea behind these suggestions is to make fighting over Malta something the Axis would want to do even if they know they will most likely not be able to conquer it. What do you guys think? Does any of this make any sense?

[Taxman66]

Lothos,

I'm not sure what you define as 'way to easy'.

I sank 2 subs (that were not even at full strength) recently (summer 1942) all it took was about 90% of the UK's Bomber force (1 Maritime Bomber, 2 Medium Bombers, 2 TAC bombers, 2 FTRs, the US Blimp (flying to spot dived subs), a full CV, 2 DDs and 2 Cruisers. These guys started on the surface, so were 'easier' to deal with.

In another area I sank a (submerged sub)... All it took was 2 turns of a combined 5 CVLs, CV, and about 4 DDs.

For the record, I do like the preventing CA and bigger from being able to attack subs (not sure if you removed it from CLs, but don't think you should).


-----

Dudeman,

I thought about your suggestion, and the objection I have to it, is that subs are too strong in fleet actions and adding more of them and weakening their strategic usefulness, is only going to encourage them to be used more in fleet actions and be more deadly.

[Lothos]

Lothos,

I'm not sure what you define as 'way to easy'.

I sank 2 subs (that were not even at full strength) recently (summer 1942) all it took was about 90% of the UK's Bomber force (1 Maritime Bomber, 2 Medium Bombers, 2 TAC bombers, 2 FTRs, the US Blimp (flying to spot dived subs), a full CV, 2 DDs and 2 Cruisers. These guys started on the surface, so were 'easier' to deal with.

In another area I sank a (submerged sub)... All it took was 2 turns of a combined 5 CVLs, CV, and about 4 DDs.

For the record, I do like the preventing CA and bigger from being able to attack subs (not sure if you removed it from CLs, but don't think you should).


-----

Dudeman,

I thought about your suggestion, and the objection I have to it, is that subs are too strong in fleet actions and adding more of them and weakening their strategic usefulness, is only going to encourage them to be used more in fleet actions and be more deadly.

Destroying ships is not suppose to be as easy as destroying air or land units. It is suppose to be harder because they take so long to replace.

Yes to destroy a fulls trengh sub usually takes about 5 to 6 surface hits and 2 CVLs attacking it.

In most cases the concept is you will severely damage them and they need to run back to port.

[Lothos]

I have been thinking a lot about the mechanics around Malta. I feel like the mod is taking great steps into making it hard for the Axis to take it, but I feel like there is an underlying problem where for Axis the problem of Malta is binary. You either need to throw everything at it and conquer it or you ignore it and accept hard times in North Africa.

I have came up with a few mechanics that could make the gameplay around Malta more interesting.

• Make the supply hit from controlling Malta scale with the amount of infrastructure Malta and or the ports have.

• Add naval raid hexes, to North African Coast so the Allies need to actually put their fleet in some danger to setup a full blockade of North Africa

These two things combined would make the control of the North African supply more nuanced:

• If the Axis player bombs Malta the Allies would need to send out Ships to keep the blockade in full effect. Even if the Axis would not be able to take Malta it would require an Allied response.

• If the Axis player completely ignores Malta the North African supply will suffer even more as the Allies can stack both Malta and raid hex penalties.

• If the Axis does want to not or cannot hit Malta with airpower they can try and keep the Allies off the raid hexes to keep supplies flowing into North Africa.

Idea behind these suggestions is to make fighting over Malta something the Axis would want to do even if they know they will most likely not be able to conquer it. What do you guys think? Does any of this make any sense?

It was not the Navy per say that really hampered axis shipping to North Africa. It was the planes coming out of Malta.

Their is no way to really put planes on Malta. In the coming patch to simulate the air planes on the Island I made it so Malta can see 7 Sea Hexes in all directions.

As for the raid hexes, I thought about this but this could be detrimental to the Axis and can be very over powerful. The Allies (especially super early in the war) could literally choke North Africa to death and the Axis could do nothing about it.

Malta is suppose to be hard and is literally a fortress (or was back then now its a resort LOL).

[Taxman66]

Lothos,

I'm not sure what you define as 'way to easy'.

I sank 2 subs (that were not even at full strength) recently (summer 1942) all it took was about 90% of the UK's Bomber force (1 Maritime Bomber, 2 Medium Bombers, 2 TAC bombers, 2 FTRs, the US Blimp (flying to spot dived subs), a full CV, 2 DDs and 2 Cruisers. These guys started on the surface, so were 'easier' to deal with.

In another area I sank a (submerged sub)... All it took was 2 turns of a combined 5 CVLs, CV, and about 4 DDs.

For the record, I do like the preventing CA and bigger from being able to attack subs (not sure if you removed it from CLs, but don't think you should).


-----

Dudeman,

I thought about your suggestion, and the objection I have to it, is that subs are too strong in fleet actions and adding more of them and weakening their strategic usefulness, is only going to encourage them to be used more in fleet actions and be more deadly.

Destroying ships is not suppose to be as easy as destroying air or land units. It is suppose to be harder because they take so long to replace.




Yes to destroy a fulls trengh sub usually takes about 5 to 6 surface hits and 2 CVLs attacking it.

In most cases the concept is you will severely damage them and they need to run back to port.

Ever take the RN against the Luftwaffe and see how easy it is to lose ships?
Hell, subs themselves do a damn nasty job of ripping up capital ships with little to no repercussions.

I'd stomach increasing sub survivability (at least until Fall 1942, after that subs should start getting creamed), if they were far less deadly as fleet units.

For the record not your fault... but I just hate the SC naval system from the ground up.

[Lothos]

Lothos,

I'm not sure what you define as 'way to easy'.

I sank 2 subs (that were not even at full strength) recently (summer 1942) all it took was about 90% of the UK's Bomber force (1 Maritime Bomber, 2 Medium Bombers, 2 TAC bombers, 2 FTRs, the US Blimp (flying to spot dived subs), a full CV, 2 DDs and 2 Cruisers. These guys started on the surface, so were 'easier' to deal with.

In another area I sank a (submerged sub)... All it took was 2 turns of a combined 5 CVLs, CV, and about 4 DDs.

For the record, I do like the preventing CA and bigger from being able to attack subs (not sure if you removed it from CLs, but don't think you should).


-----

Dudeman,

I thought about your suggestion, and the objection I have to it, is that subs are too strong in fleet actions and adding more of them and weakening their strategic usefulness, is only going to encourage them to be used more in fleet actions and be more deadly.

Destroying ships is not suppose to be as easy as destroying air or land units. It is suppose to be harder because they take so long to replace.




Yes to destroy a fulls trengh sub usually takes about 5 to 6 surface hits and 2 CVLs attacking it.

In most cases the concept is you will severely damage them and they need to run back to port.

Ever take the RN against the Luftwaffe and see how easy it is to lose ships?
Hell, subs themselves do a damn nasty job of ripping up capital ships with little to no repercussions.

I'd stomach increasing sub survivability (at least until Fall 1942, after that subs should start getting creamed), if they were far less deadly as fleet units.

For the record not your fault... but I just hate the SC naval system from the ground up.

Yes planes can rip up Surface Ships really fast but that is not a Submarine.

Strategic Command does not really represent subs in a way that completely makese sense for the unit type. The fact is planes had a very hard time find and hitings subs. Once a sub would dive under the water it was very difficult for air power.

You can't compare damage to surface ships by planes to be the same as damage to subs. Surface ships can't escape aircraft when subs not only can escape them but if they are already submerged are completely invisible to them and a plane will just fly right by. Their is no real way to simulate this in Strategic Command. Subs (even in Silent Mode) can be seen. So the only option is to make it harder to destroy them.

[Taxman66]

Subs got torn apart by air power, even if indirectly.

I don't think you researched just how badly planes wrecked subs. Even if the sub did dive, WW2 Subs could not stay underwater indefinitely, and planes would spot them and radio their positions where they got put upon by DDs, DEs and so forth. Submerged subs don't move very far/fast and often were spotted quickly again when they did come back up. Sonar and ASW weapons improved subs/sub investment became an economic negative for Germany by the fall of 1942 and a disaster by 1943.

In the Pacific US subs had a heyday against Japan, but that was mostly due to Japan failing to properly defend against them. This was due to cultural and philosophical reasons that considered such defensive actions as less honorable/desirable.

[Lothos]

Subs got torn apart by air power, even if indirectly.

I don't think you researched just how badly planes wrecked subs. Even if the sub did dive, WW2 Subs could not stay underwater indefinitely, and planes would spot them and radio their positions where they got put upon by DDs, DEs and so forth. Submerged subs don't move very far/fast and often were spotted quickly again when they did come back up. Sonar and ASW weapons improved subs/sub investment became an economic negative for Germany by the fall of 1942 and a disaster by 1943.

In the Pacific US subs had a heyday against Japan, but that was mostly due to Japan failing to properly defend against them. This was due to cultural and philosophical reasons that considered such defensive actions as less honorable/desirable.

In 1939 none of that existed and their is no real way to simulate that in Strategic Command in 1942. Best way is for Ships to upgrade their sub attack.

A plane doing 2 damage to a sub with no reprocussions is a pretty good way to simulate that. Sounds like you literally want to use a plant and kill the sub with a single shot.

Here is the problem, it is way to easy to find subs. Don't believe? Ask Dudeman!

He has a great strategy that works and can find subs really fast.

These changes are to help subs have a chance of surviving and retreat. I have played several games as the allies and when you have ZOC all you need to do is find the sub and then surround it so it can't escape. It is guaranteed to be dead.

These changes are to help the sub have a chance of surviving that.

[Taxman66]

Hardly, but I don't think it should take 12-14 CV/CVL strikes + 6 DD strikes over 2 turns to sink one either.

[Lothos]

Hardly, but I don't think it should take 12-14 CV/CVL strikes + 6 DD strikes over 2 turns to sink one either.

Each Carrier strike can do 2 damage. So it would take 5 carrier strikes to fully destroy a sub.

I have hunted subs down and it did not take 12 to 14 strikes.

[Laki]

Hardly, but I don't think it should take 12-14 CV/CVL strikes + 6 DD strikes over 2 turns to sink one either.

I guess the question is should the Allies be able to outright destroy subs or be able to relatively easily force them back to port for repairs and supply.

Instead of trying to destroy one sub with that fleet you could have probably sent most of the Axis sub fleet back to base. Problem is of course finding the subs, but with that many ships you could keep an eye on half the Atlantic ocean.

[Taxman66]

This was not a normal sub hunting/raiding curcumstance.

It did take all that to kill it, because the sub was submerged and nearly every hit did only 1 damage, when said hit wasn't avoided somehow.

[Lothos]

Beta version of TRP 1.4 has been made public in the Discord channel. It is pinned, if you want it you can join the channel and download it.

This is not the final version and their will be more changes.

[BillRunacre]

Well take it up with Bill and Hubert. This deal has come up before. So until it's fixed, a lot of us rationalize it with as another kind of intelligence gathering.
It's been a thing for years and years.

Thing is... I'm playing Axis, and half the time the map hovers in around Poznan, Poland. Well I make jokes about that. What the hell is in Poznan?

Also, this lingering at sea is haphazard. Sometimes it will linger on a solo vessel. Other times a U-Boat pack.
Sometimes the desert where there is movement shuffling.

You never know.

Again, it's not precise. It can lure someone into a false idea of what's actually happening.
So again, like I said, a lot of us of learned to live with it and adjusted accordingly as abstract intell.

Anyways strange stuff like this happens in the real world.
It's an indicator of something afoot. Is it actionable intell is another question entirely.

Maybe this behavior can get fixed. It has been discussed before here on the forums somewhere. If it can be fixed that would be great. No more weird radio news.

Hi everyone

We have discussed this internally and we will be fixing it.

While I also understand the rationalisation of it, it does give experienced players an unfair advantage over new players, and it isn't intended either. Ideally information should either be given in a more consistent way or not at all (leaving aside Intel reports of course).

[Laki]

We have discussed this internally and we will be fixing it.

While I also understand the rationalisation of it, it does give experienced players an unfair advantage over new players, and it isn't intended either. Ideally information should either be given in a more consistent way or not at all (leaving aside Intel reports of course).

Great news!

As a side note I feel like Spying and intelligence research could use a buff. Easiest would be to make it reveal more units, but it would be more interesting if it could also reveal cities and resources even if there are no units stationed. Knowing a key location does not have a unit guarding might be even more valuable than knowing it has a garrison. Also weighting spying and intelligence to reveal units closer to friendly vision would make it more useful. Knowing what behind the immediate front line is more valuable that info of units far away from action.

Also giving the spy and intelligence +1 spotting range might be worth considering.