Suggestions thread

[CSSS]

Could we get a series of naval loops from USA to other parts manually moving to the U.K is tedious

[xwormwood]

Those loops kill the naval warfare. If at all i would suggest to offer purchases directly into the UK or France, but for a much higher price.
Cheapest way to build and send units: do it by hand.
If you prefer a star trek kind of naval beamer: pay for it on top of the standard unit and transport price.

For me all wishes for on-map loops are in truth wishes for a different naval system with naval zones (as seen in Clash of Steel or Storm Across Europe). This wish is not forbidden, nor is a naval zone system a bad one.
But mixing the current naval system with another naval system will result in the destruction of the current naval system. A system where you prowl the high sea hexes with your subs and pocket battleships, hoping for juicy bounty, looking for fat prey. Loops will take this part OUT OF THE GAME, making the game poorer than before. And once a player realize this un-announced feature he will be disapointed about an idea that either wasn't thought through, or abandoned during the time the game got programmed.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood

Those loops kill the naval warfare. If at all i would suggest to offer purchases directly into the UK or France, but for a much higher price.
Cheapest way to build and send units: do it by hand.
If you prefer a star trek kind of naval beamer: pay for it on top of the standard unit and transport price.

Agree. Loops are only useful to connect cut off sea areas.

[dhucul2011]

No loops from USA to Europe. We had them in SC2. Glad they're gone.

[CSSS]

How about greater number of movement points from U.S. transports? A transport across the Atlantic took 3 weeks not three months in WWII.

[TheBattlefield]

Just double the number of the possible US Amphibious Transports (LR) and halve the number of short distance Amphibious Transports, this would be sufficient. These AT(LR) sea vehicles move at an average speed. However, a transporter should not have more movement points than a war ship. Besides, the Troop Transport also own a "forced march" function.

[BillRunacre]

I think it's fine for Transports to be faster than warships as from my reading they were generally fast cruise liners that could outpace most other ships. That's one reason why so many sailed unscathed across the Atlantic in both world wars.

But we can't really make them much faster than normal warships, which is why using the Cruise function is recommended.

Researching Amphibious Warfare increases the Build Limit for Amphibious Transports of both types, so it is well worth the USA and to a more limited extent the UK to invest in this.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

I think it's fine for Transports to be faster than warships as from my reading they were generally fast cruise liners that could outpace most other ships. That's one reason why so many sailed unscathed across the Atlantic in both world wars.

Well Bill, that may be fine and also playable but it's surely unhistorical:

USS Admiral W. S. Sims (Transport, launched 1944) = 19 knots max speed
Admiral Graf Spee (Cruiser, launched 1934) = 28.5 knots max speed

For submarines it's ok: U-367 (launched 1943) = 17.7 knots max speed [:)]

[BillRunacre]

It's true that not all were fast cruise liners, but those that were carried a disproportionate number of troops over the Atlantic, e.g. the Queen Mary brought over more than 16,000 in one voyage alone.

Between them the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth transported more than 1,500,000 troops during the war. These are at the more extreme end of the scale, but they were even able to sail without escort because they were so fast (generally 28.5 knots, but could go faster).

[bott.2]

1943 Operational Citadel, Allied AI, Diff=0, Bonus=0, Version:1.00.11

The Allies have attack at Livorno way north of Rome in September 1943 (as noted in the jpeg). Would the Allies have had the resources and the ability to attack this part of Italy at this stage of the war? Is this a possible play balance adjustment issue to make the game more historic. Just a thought. I really enjoy this game BTW... Thanks.

[rjh1971]

The time necessary to build ships is the following
BB: 15 turns
CC: 14
CA: 12
DD: 6
CV: 18
SS: 6

But if those same ships are damaged in combat and sent to be repaired in a port they are brought up to full strength in just one turn [X(], this imho is not realistic, it took an average from 6 to 12 months at least to repair ships.
I propose to apply the same rule as for HQ and repairs should only be allowed in ports with 10 strength points, if their bombed the facilities are not fully operational and repairs should be further slowed down.

If this is considered appropriate it could be included in the first patch.

Another thing that does not look right to me is that ports with a strength of five can no reinforce ships above 8 strength points but can supply elite reinforcements.

[xwormwood]

Suggestions for later releases or a patch:

armored trains could prevent connected cities and / or the hexes around the tracks (between the two cities where the trains has been placed) partisan activities.
This would make the armoured trais hinterland units, not actuall combat line units.

AT units could provide a certain degree of help to adjacent infantry units if those come under the attack of armoured units.

Carriers could provide protection to adjacent naval units (an air strike against the attacker).

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood
Carriers could provide protection to adjacent naval units (an air strike against the attacker).

Protection in the sense of interception or counter-attack? Would you like to configure this automated command as an option (with its own command line in the unit action menu) or should this be firmly linked to the "tactical" setting?

Basically I find the idea of further interactions of neighboring units quite interesting. Thus, elite units could positively influence the moral values of their neighboring formations. Pioneer units could improve the attack value of adjacent units against strongholds. Destroyers could do counter-attacks on submarines that torpedo the ships they convoy. Of course, also the clarity of possible battle results may not get completely out of control. But I am also the last one who despised an intuitive expected (even without studying the documentation) unit behavior in a strategy game. [:)]

[xwormwood]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood
Carriers could provide protection to adjacent naval units (an air strike against the attacker).

Protection in the sense of interception or counter-attack? Would you like to configure this automated command as an option (with its own command line in the unit action menu) or should this be firmly linked to the "tactical" setting?

Basically I find the idea of further interactions of neighboring units quite interesting. Thus, elite units could positively influence the moral values of their neighboring formations. Pioneer units could improve the attack value of adjacent units against strongholds. Destroyers could do counter-attacks on submarines that torpedo the ships they convoy. Of course, also the clarity of possible battle results may not get completely out of control. But I am also the last one who despised an intuitive expected (even without studying the documentation) unit behavior in a strategy game. [:)]

Good ideas here. Engineers adding to attacks against fortresses, or to lower movement costs? I'm in!
The destroy counter attack sound nice too.

Morale and readiness from Elite units? Not so convinced about that, but that is of course only my point of view.

[TheBattlefield]

It is soon Christmas, therefore a small (great) wish for the creative community of the mod designers:

The many new (and partly still unused) units also offer many possibilities to create new or differentiated formations. But then it can be a bit strange if the beautiful new "Sturmpionier" unit acoustically gallops over the map. Would it be somehow possible to attach individual (at least in the naming assignment) soundfiles to the existing units? Or alternatively allow an optional assignment of the existing sounds via the editor?

When I think about it there is a second wish...would it be possible to unblock the so far functionless menu of the unit property assignments (Soft/Hard/Tank...etc.) in the editor?

[xwormwood]

Once Germany surrenders there are a couple of pop-infos, which really help to say goodbye to your game.
I would like to suggest to add even a couple more pop ups, just to offer the player some more "feel good time" after all these hours hes played his game. I like the speech part, and would be glad if there would be more speeches at the end of the game, and more pictures of celebrating people, added with some pictures of Europe in ruins, and POWs marching into their yet unknown fate. Swastikas exploding, passports or school certificate with rubbed out swastika symbols, and the other way round.

This pop-up / speech / sound- festival should give the player a well deserved "thank you for playing" farewell.
I don't has to reach the End-Sequence of the Lord of the Rings movies, which nearly run half an hour, but 2 - 5 minutes would be something new for a grand strategy war game.

I already like the current end game "entertainement", as it is already better than within the older SC releases. But if I could, I would add even more.

[sPzAbt653]

I would like to suggest to add even a couple more pop ups, just to offer the player some more "feel good time" after all these hours hes played his game.

I feel the same way, the ending is anti-climactic. Good suggestions on having some more stuff happen [but with a way to stop it or turn it off in case you want to move on to other things].

[sPzAbt653]

The Azores could maybe use a few more labels, they are a little bleak at the present. Maybe add Terceira, Pico and Flores [see next post].

[sPzAbt653]

Here is a qwiki map of the Acores [Portuguese spelling]. In the current game we can base an air unit at Ponta Delgado, but the WWII airbase was actually on Terceira.

[sPzAbt653]

There were some important Tungsten/Wolfram mines in Portugal. I don't know if they have been taken into account elsewhere in the game, but they aren't on the map. In addition to a few Wiki articles, there is some good info from the fine folks at Axis History:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=163333

Panasqueira is one of the largest tungsten mines in the world. It is located in Covilhã, Castelo Branco, Portugal [which looks to be at 131,105]. The Tabuaço mine [at Porto] represents one of the largest tungsten reserves in Portugal.

The history during WWII is a little complex, but if these mines aren't already involved somehow in the game, then maybe if either side gets over 20% leaning in Portugal then that side would get a few Tungsten MPP's. I say this because Portugal was selling to both sides, and both sides were trying to stop sales to the other.