World at War v32a2 released

[JAMiAM]

The problem with counterbattery being enabled seems to be an engine problem. If you have a stack of 5 artillery attacking a stack of 20 infantry and one artillery then you get horribly skewed results like 2 defending infantry killed and one or two attacking artillery killed. Something needs to be adjusted within the CB routines so that more realistic results are achieved. As it is now, the safest thing to do is to drop an artillery SFT, or two, into every frontline unit to make them fairly impervious to artillery bombardments.

[JAMiAM]

As far as the one hex, or two hex, ranges for artillery, I'm on the fence between the two. Seille brings up some good points, but the counterargument of the hex scale is a strong one, too. It doesn't make much sense to be able to hit defending airfields a hex behind enemy lines with artillery, when playing at this scale.

As far as not being able to move the artillery back, that is simply not true. With these later versions of WaW, the trains allow you to move in 5 AP increments, so you can often move such that you will have 5 AP's left over after the bombardment, and can move back behind your own lines. Another means of moving back your bombarding units is to use strategic movement to move the entire unit back. Alternately, a double transfer from unit, to HQ, to unit, can accomplish the same thing.

[seille]

I know the negative effects of the counterbattery fire when the target is mixed artillery/infantry.
And there is indeed no good solution than concentrating own artillery fire as good as possible.
I played only one time with that feature turned on and that was a great war game.
 
For WaW i´m not a specialist especially not for the later versions. That i can move the artillery in and out when carried
on trains i did not know. The other solutions i know, but that´s not really a good way since it will cost a lot of readiness
and (the turn after that) supply. Moving out a unit with strategic transfer i do only in emergency cases where i fear the opponent
will destroy it in his turn.
 
 
I think the guy´s who played one WAW game after the other could tell us some impressions here.
How the range 1 and counter battery works in the game.
For myself i can say i´ll think twice if i produce artillery or mortar with such a range 1 setup [;)]

[IRONCROM]

-Agree with seille on strategic transfer. It's not a good option.
-I haven't seen a lot of artillery duels in WAW. Counter battery is only a problem if your bombarding another hex with arty.
-One hex arty is more realistic for WAW. But it does make them more vulnerable
 
Does anybody agree with me on air range?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
-Agree with seille on strategic transfer. It's not a good option.

I disagree. I've used it to great effect in many pbem games. It's a great way to "hit and git". Though you suffer a 50 readiness drop, you can recover all of that in the following turn. Provided, of course, that you're producing and distributing adequate levels of supply, that you're not suffering winter effects, and that you're not getting dinged by bombarding a hex with artillery counterbattering your own.

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
-I haven't seen a lot of artillery duels in WAW. Counter battery is only a problem if your bombarding another hex with arty.

Then you haven't played this scenario against Tom. He puts an artillery unit in about 50-75% of his front line units and there are a lot of artillery duels going on. I think that CB fire is an excellent idea, but I'm not thrilled with its current balance and level of development in AT. It needs to be tweaked somewhat.

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
-One hex arty is more realistic for WAW. But it does make them more vulnerable

As they should be, to a more reasonable degree. At this scale, at least. I think Seille had some good ideas about balancing them better by reducing their stacking value, and in my mod I'm going to do that for them, as well as far the rest of the drawn pieces (AA, AT, IG's).

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
Does anybody agree with me on air range?

I emphatically disagree with you on air range. The vanilla ranges are horribly out of place at this scale. The current ranges are almost perfect with respect to realistic operating radii for the aircraft. There could be a bit more stretch for the level bombers, but even there, you have an issue with a lack of differentiation between antagonists. LB's current range is too low for some of the airframes that were in use, and right for others. DB's are right for most all tactical type bombers. Fighters, it could be argued, still have too big a radius, but there are gameplay issues with reducing it any more. Other than a few notable exceptions, being both long-ranged and a fighter was mutually exclusive throughout most the war. At least until drop tanks, and that should be considered a level III, or level IV tech.

[IRONCROM]

I didn't I agree with counter battery. I have no opinion either way. I was just pointing out that arty duels are not common in WAW.

As far as operating range of aircraft in WAW goes. You can't even bomb Paris from planes based in London unless you upgrade. And targets in Germany are out of range no matter what the tech Level. How can someone playing west launch an strategic bombing campaign. It is not even close to being historical. You are wrong.
(P51d had a combat range of 950 miles and an operational range of 1300 mile with drop tanks. The distance from London to Berlin in flight miles is 580 miles)

After strategic transfer. With good supply the arty will get back only 30 of 50 in the lost rediness.(I've tested it)
Besides I think a player shouldn't have to use there limited transport capacity for something that wouldn't be an isue if the arty had a range of 2 hexes.
Using strategic tranfer means losing tranport capacity and losing rediness.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
As far as operating range of aircraft in WAW goes. You can't even bomb Paris from planes based in London unless you upgrade. And targets in Germany are out of range no matter what the tech Level. How can someone playing west launch an strategic bombing campaign. It is not even close to being historical. You are wrong.

Are you talking about fighters, or about level bombers? Level bombers have a range of 7 hexes at level one, since they move at Air14. This allows Level I Levelbombers based in London to hit half of the Ruhr targets and all non-Vichy targets in France and Benelux. Assuming, of course, that they are not trying to fly around neutral countries. If you build an airbase at (40,14) in East Anglia, you can hit 3/4 of the targets in western Germany with Level I Levelbombers. The strategic bombing campaign didn't start taking off for the Allies until mid-43. You should be at level III techs by then, for a couple of directed tech targets.

I would argue for more differentiation in some of the starting tech levels for various nations, and Level II bombers would be a good idea for the West at the start. This would extend their range to 8 hexes at the start of the game.

As far as the P-51d is concerned, that should be considered a Level IV fighter. Something not readily acheivable in the game until around 1944.

If you'd like to playtest any of the WaW variants under consideration, I would be happy to give you a little more variation in your results...[;)]

You're right on the strat move's readiness recovery being only 30, as opposed to my previous claim of being able to recover all of it. I still don't see that as a major issue though since it's not likely a tactic that you would be employing every turn. Only on those turns where you are left with artillery overextended on the front lines. Still, it's better than having artillery hitting airfields behind enemy lines.

[IRONCROM]

I'm kinda talking in general. And your right about "level bomber I"

Historically the British bombed places like Berlin, Hamburg, Kiel, Bremen, Wilhelmshaven in 1940.
They also had long range fighters that were capable of flying escort to places like cologne at the beginning of the war.(Beaufighter is an example)

P38's came in service in 1941 and served in Combat extensively in 1942. Early p51a's came in service in 1941 but the p51b's and c's which were capable of flying escort to Berlin didn't show up in Europe in large numbers until mid to late 1943. First escort flights to Berlin didn't happen until early 1944.

Munich was bombed by allies starting in 1941. Prague was never bombed intentionally but was flown over extensively by allied bombers going to other targets.

My opinion would be to start "level bomber I" out with a range of 12... They could then bomb Berlin from hex 40,14(Better yet give level II bombers a range of 12 and start the west out with level II bombers)
And I think fighters should be able to reach Berlin by level 3. Or maybe 4.
It has to be acheavable without sacrficing too much by mid 1943. And if someone wants to make long range fighters there top priority over anything else and dedicate the bulk of there production to acheave that goal. I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to reach that goal in say mid to late 1941.(At a heavy price of course)

Having a shorter intercept Range for fighters than the attack range seems to do a pretty good job of simulating both the long range fighter and the interceptor all in one unit.

I havn't given much thought to Divebomber range. They should probably have the shortest range. The current range is probably pretty close to where they should be.

IMHO

[SMK-at-work]

One thing about arty range 2 is that it gives the right effect compared to lvl 1 - especially if you consider it as the very heaviest artillery, and "mortars" as the "normal" division level artillery. 

Perhaps modify "mortars" to be "medium artillery" with a range 1 arty shot, and arty to be very heavy arty and possibly more expensive??

[seille]

The aircraft range in WAW is very short especially for intercepting.
Can´t say i like it ! Having the planes close enough to the front to
hit the attacker makes them vulnerable to ground attacks.
But ok, that´s the same for both players.

[von altair]

Results of my artillery tests:

1 artillery range is too short and causes a lot of problems for defending side with current stack size. Stacking size increase doesn't totally fix this problem.

2 range is better and I really belive thats what it should be. No matter if it is a bit out of realism becose of mapscale. Thats only minor thing compared to playability. Current engine system will actually balance out that range thing quite well. With reduced stack value, both sides can form different artillery tactics and both can benefit greatly about counter ability. Attacker will have to protect artillery with soaking units, no matter if they are in backrow. Normally they didin't have to do that.

I will play this game to the end and start a new one with these changes. If it goes as well as tests and player community agree, I will fix those things along with stack point decrease with other artillery pieces as well.

I also agree, that we should do more teamwork, to make this excellent Tom's scenario even better. I am happy to help this out, since I like this game very much!

[Barthheart]

My comments:

1) Fighter ranges seem about right, though I do agree that by Lvl IV you should be able to reach Berlin from London, but just. I don't think long range fighters could fight for a long amount of time at that range.

2) Level bomber ranges are a little short, but only if you consider them to be strategic bombers as well... maybe we need a new bomber class.....

3) Arty range of 2 just feels wrong when you can fire across the English Channel and other "80 km" wide straits. If the arty is to represent "really large guns" then it needs to be WAY more expensive and rare. Maybe also turn counter-battery back off, as it can be "represented" by the fact that you arty needs to be in the frontline.... this might correct for the CB loss inbalance.

4) AA should only have range 0, unless you want AA to represent AA complexes then they should be more expensive....

Additions I'm thinking of:

1) Shore batteries - arty that can only shoot at ships, immoble except by truck/train.

2) Split AA into light and heavy, light attacks fighters and dive bombers, heavy attack level (and strat) bombers. Heavy can't move on own.

3) Naval fighters and naval bombers, maybe even split naval bombers into naval divebombers and torpedo bombers. Give carriers ablility to carry 6 naval air units. Torpedos usless against ground targets.

4) Shore bombardment does more readiness and structural damage and less men/weapon damage.

There's many more but need to fill the ideas out more - Russian railroads, ramping production, variable manpower, different types of factories... etc.....

[IRONCROM]

Well I see I have people agreeing at least partly with my belief that air range is to short.
 
@Barthheart... I agree that the intercept range of the fighters now is pretty close. I would like to see it start at 3 instead of 2 and max out at say 6. I still think the attack range should be much further though. It should be able to reach Berlin by level III or IV.
 The Brits started the war with the ability to hit Berlin with level bombers. They should be able to reach Berlin by no later than level bomber II. (IMO)
 
I'll stay out of the Arty debate for now. I trust your opinions on that. All of you have obviously given it a lot more thought than I have.
 I would totally be game for adding more types of aircraft like Barth has suggested. I think the scenario functions fine with the current aircraft (range being the only issue) but I could see an argument for have 2 types of carrier air as Barth has suggested and I have even toyed with the idea of having 2 types of fighters. A short range interceptor and a longer range escort fighter. Although I think the current fighter simulates both pretty well. You could maybe simulate the air war better if you had 2 separate fighters.
 I'm not sure about AA. I haven't given much thought to that. Some people have complained that it is to weak and if you shorten the range it will make it weaker since the ability to overlap them is where they get there strength. Range 0 would be more accurate for WAW though. If it were range 0 it would probably have to be stronger. I'm open to the idea of changing AA but I think it works fine now though.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
1) Fighter ranges seem about right, though I do agree that by Lvl IV you should be able to reach Berlin from London, but just. I don't think long range fighters could fight for a long amount of time at that range.

I pretty much agree. The engine actually does a good job of abstracting this set of issues by using AP's proportional to the distance flown for attacking SFT's and the interception radius covers high intensity defensive operations.

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
2) Level bomber ranges are a little short, but only if you consider them to be strategic bombers as well... maybe we need a new bomber class.....

I visualize the level bombers as primarily strategic bombers, and lump all tactical bombers into the DB category. Granted that this rather restricts a fairly diverse range (historically) of planes into a single pigeonhole. If any class should be split, IMO, it is this one - twin engined TAC bombers, with a larger range and more deadly against soft troops, and single engined DB's with a shorter range and deadlier against vehicles, and ships.

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
3) Arty range of 2 just feels wrong when you can fire across the English Channel and other "80 km" wide straits. If the arty is to represent "really large guns" then it needs to be WAY more expensive and rare. Maybe also turn counter-battery back off, as it can be "represented" by the fact that you arty needs to be in the frontline.... this might correct for the CB loss inbalance.

Agree on the range issues, and would not even bother with making "really large guns". Counterbattery is theoretically a great idea. It is just poorly implemented at the current time. It is important to allow players to come up with reasonable defensive countermeasures to the gamey tactics of endless shore bombarding by enemy fleets. With the turn-based engine, no interception capability, and the movement allowance in WaW giving naval units the capability of having leftover AP's with which to move back away from the stricken hex, it makes it extremely hard to defend against such unrealistic and ahistorical uses of naval forces.

I would love to see Vic make an engine change here, so that CB is better represented. One thing that I have not yet tried is to see if the rulevar field for this function accepts a decimal value. Does anybody other than Vic know exactly what is going on under the hood when CB occurs? If the function was changed to accept decimal values, and then use this as a true variable over some range of CB effect, then the behavior could be better tuned.

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
4) AA should only have range 0, unless you want AA to represent AA complexes then they should be more expensive....

On the fence for this one. They only lend half support at range one, and are extremely vulnerable to direct attack. I do think that they should have a maximum range of one at this scale, however, and disagree with Altair's allowing the higher level techs to bump this up to two.

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
1) Shore batteries - arty that can only shoot at ships, immoble except by truck/train.

You must have been reading my mind last night. What I am planning to do is to create coastal battery/fortress units that have the following basic characteristics:
- Immobile, even for truck/train. They will need to be emplaced by allocating production to an HQ unit that will then have to transfer out the SFT to another unit. Or, alternately, stay within the now immobilized HQ.
- Very resilient to air/naval/artillery bombardment.
- Highly effective against air/naval/artillery.
- High attack values when defending, and low attack values when attacking.
- High values for HP's, defense and entrenchment.
- Very expensive, yet durable, relative to other units.

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
2) Split AA into light and heavy, light attacks fighters and dive bombers, heavy attack level (and strat) bombers. Heavy can't move on own.

I don't see this as being particularly necessary at this scale.

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
3) Naval fighters and naval bombers, maybe even split naval bombers into naval divebombers and torpedo bombers. Give carriers ablility to carry 6 naval air units. Torpedos usless against ground targets.

There is a definite need for the carrier air to be revamped. As it is now, the carrier air does not intercept, and this causes some pretty screwy results. So, I do agree on a need for splitting naval fighters and naval bombers up, but I think going with a further split into DB's and TB's is overkill. I would rather just reduce the effectiveness of the carrier-based bombers a bit from where it is currently. Not much though. Also, I'm pretty sure that the higher level CV's can already carry more Carrier Air SFT's.

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
4) Shore bombardment does more readiness and structural damage and less men/weapon damage.

I think that with a realistic CB effect, and with coastal battery/fortress units in important hexes, the current overpowering of shore bombardment will be ameliorated. At least, that's the direction I'd prefer to work from.

Ps. I hope you didn't think that my not wanting to argue with an engineer comment a few posts back didn't sound too snarky. Looking back at it, I thought it did. I should have put some smileys in there, or something...[;)]

[IRONCROM]

You know what be really great is if we could talk vorsteher into incorperating his Barbarossa artwork into the WAW scenario.[:D]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM

You know what be really great is if we could talk vorsteher into incorperating his Barbarossa artwork into the WAW scenario.[:D]

Vic (and Matrix) would want to make sure that it is all original artwork first. If he pulled it from Osprey, or some other copyrighted source, there could be legal issues with including it within an official patch.

[IRONCROM]

My dream of the air war in the west...

Longer range level bombers will cause the German player to have to invest in multiple fighter formations to protect German and French industries since fighters have a short intercept range. But once Germany has made that investment the allies have to be able to add long range escort fighters to the air war or it will be over. AA Will be an additional deterrent but on its own never able to shut down a strategic bombing campaign without help from interceptors. Fighters should be the determining factor here as to the success or demise of a successful air campaign.
The scenario should be able to simulate this. That way an air campaign from the west would be a useful alternative to landing troops in 41',42',and 43' in order to take heat off of the Russians.
The scenario connot do that now.

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

...
Ps. I hope you didn't think that my not wanting to argue with an engineer comment a few posts back didn't sound too snarky. Looking back at it, I thought it did. I should have put some smileys in there, or something...[;)]

Not to worry... us engineers are made of thicker stuff than that! [8D](ie I hadn't noticed it could be taken that way![X(])

On CB. this just happened in my game with IRONCROM. Ships counter-battery land arty! THat's the only way I can explain this result! Could make shore battery - naval combat fun![X(]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
On CB. this just happened in my game with IRONCROM. Ships counter-battery land arty! THat's the only way I can explain this result! Could make shore battery - naval combat fun![X(]

Yeah, it's a two-edged sword. As it is now, CB allows for both ships and artillery to fire at each other whenever either artillery attacks are launched against the ships, or ships SB a stack with artillery in it. Given the current CB behavior, it is best for the land player to let the navy SB his artillery laden stacks, as then the losses will favor him, rather than the ships. Then, of course, counterstrike with aircraft, naval and/or a BIG stack of artillery.

[seille]

ORIGINAL: von altair

Results of my artillery tests:

1 artillery range is too short and causes a lot of problems for defending side with current stack size. Stacking size increase doesn't totally fix this problem.

2 range is better and I really belive thats what it should be. No matter if it is a bit out of realism becose of mapscale. Thats only minor thing compared to playability. Current engine system will actually balance out that range thing quite well. With reduced stack value, both sides can form different artillery tactics and both can benefit greatly about counter ability. Attacker will have to protect artillery with soaking units, no matter if they are in backrow. Normally they didin't have to do that.

Mhh, what can i say ? I agree completely.
Yes, it is not 100% realistic, but it´s better for playability and balance.
The only way to have really protected artillery is to keep it behind the frontline.
Why this is a problem ??
Just think the artillery is one hex closer to the front, but enemy can´t reach it in direct attacks.
Lets say it is a workaround to keep artillery out of direct enemy fire. Rear are status doesn´t help here always....

For the fighter ranges:
As some others already suggested the later allied fighters should be able to reach Berlin easily.
Maybe it´s really a good idea to give levelbombers a higher range overall.
The west should imho start with Levelbomber II.