Game Suggestions:

[HRL58]

I would like more of a random political interference, some random events where Stalin and Hitler issuses orders that certain prestige locations should be "hold at all costs" (For example the corps in the position may not retreat), which can be counterd at the expense of some 25-50 AP and the dissmissal of the corps or army commander in site [:)]

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

Like the ap cost for static and how that system works is an issue I posted on the tester forum several days ago and is something i would like to see changed.

Andy

What's the likely decision on that. I am starting to edit a 43 campaign scenario at the moment (starting in Jan 43) and I'd like to put static units in place but if they are going to be so expensive to mobilise then there's no point.

Most of the 43 campaign variants have done away with static units entirely, which I don't believe to be valid but with the over-inflated cost to mobilise them the campaign designers have no choice.

There hasn't been any decision one way or another on this. Right now it is in the discussion stage on the tester forum. I would like to see static units remain in static mode if forced to retreat or rout. This is too easily taken advantage of. Cutting costs in half for what you receive in ap's when placing a unit in static mode and then cutting the cost in half to reactivate it was my suggestion. Any changes will be after 1.04 becomes official due to other priorities.

I think that it needs to be much more than half. Currently it costs about 70 APs to activate a full strength 1943 mech corps, and in the 1943 campaign the Soviets start with several of those. It costs 35 APs to build a new one from scratch and so it would make more sense to me, as Stavka commander, to just disband the static mech and armoured corps and brigades and build new ones. It's about 9 APs to activate a static tank brigade, and 5 to build a new one.

If it costs 5 APs to build a tank brigade it should be more like 2 or 1 AP to motorise an already existing one. Similarly a 35 AP mech corps should cost at most 5 APs to activate, not 70 or even 35.

The mechanism that causes a static unit to reactivate when it retreats or routs, combined with the cost of activating static units, leads to some very gamey play that I don't like but as the Soviets in the 1943 campaign you just have no other option. Given that you have a drain on APs for every other purpose over the front (at no point in any 1943 campaign have I been able to spare the APs to replace a leader, for example), the only way you can afford to activate those static mech and tank units is to push them into the front line and let them get retreated.

Of course I don't want to do that and in reality no sane army commander would ever have done so, but if the only other option is just to abandon those units back on the rear area hexes and leave them there until perhaps 1945 when you can spare the APs to activate them is no better a tactic.

Really you just need to get rid of one mechanism or the other. If you make it a reasonable cost in APs to reactivate static units then there will be no need to push them into suicidal positions in the front line.

The alternative is to allow disbanding of static units. I'll just disband all of the static units in my army on turn one and start building new ones. That's no less gamey, and no more historically accurate though.

[Tarhunnas]

Would it be possible to have numbers on the counters at zoom level 3? I think it looks like it would be possible. See example below, made with some editing. I think this would be very helpful when you want an overview over larger parts of the front.

[davbaker]

Is it possible for each save to remember your map preferences?

i.e.
I like :
Toggle Enemy Hexes
Show Isolated
Show City Garrison Requirements
Show the new command lines

It's annoying to have to re-set these after every load.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: delatbabel




What's the likely decision on that. I am starting to edit a 43 campaign scenario at the moment (starting in Jan 43) and I'd like to put static units in place but if they are going to be so expensive to mobilise then there's no point.

Most of the 43 campaign variants have done away with static units entirely, which I don't believe to be valid but with the over-inflated cost to mobilise them the campaign designers have no choice.

There hasn't been any decision one way or another on this. Right now it is in the discussion stage on the tester forum. I would like to see static units remain in static mode if forced to retreat or rout. This is too easily taken advantage of. Cutting costs in half for what you receive in ap's when placing a unit in static mode and then cutting the cost in half to reactivate it was my suggestion. Any changes will be after 1.04 becomes official due to other priorities.

I think that it needs to be much more than half. Currently it costs about 70 APs to activate a full strength 1943 mech corps, and in the 1943 campaign the Soviets start with several of those. It costs 35 APs to build a new one from scratch and so it would make more sense to me, as Stavka commander, to just disband the static mech and armoured corps and brigades and build new ones. It's about 9 APs to activate a static tank brigade, and 5 to build a new one.

If it costs 5 APs to build a tank brigade it should be more like 2 or 1 AP to motorise an already existing one. Similarly a 35 AP mech corps should cost at most 5 APs to activate, not 70 or even 35.

The mechanism that causes a static unit to reactivate when it retreats or routs, combined with the cost of activating static units, leads to some very gamey play that I don't like but as the Soviets in the 1943 campaign you just have no other option. Given that you have a drain on APs for every other purpose over the front (at no point in any 1943 campaign have I been able to spare the APs to replace a leader, for example), the only way you can afford to activate those static mech and tank units is to push them into the front line and let them get retreated.

Of course I don't want to do that and in reality no sane army commander would ever have done so, but if the only other option is just to abandon those units back on the rear area hexes and leave them there until perhaps 1945 when you can spare the APs to activate them is no better a tactic.

Really you just need to get rid of one mechanism or the other. If you make it a reasonable cost in APs to reactivate static units then there will be no need to push them into suicidal positions in the front line.

The alternative is to allow disbanding of static units. I'll just disband all of the static units in my army on turn one and start building new ones. That's no less gamey, and no more historically accurate though.

There is a reason for the high cost of reactivation and that is to prevent the Soviet player from bringing his full army to bear too quickly. Also since you can't disband static units, the idea of disbanding them and building cheaper ones don't work. You can build new ones, but if you have too many on the map, your truck pool won't support them all and their mp's will be affected.

The idea of cutting the ap's in half was only a suggestion though, I doubt Gary will even go along with that.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: HRL58

I would like more of a random political interference, some random events where Stalin and Hitler issuses orders that certain prestige locations should be "hold at all costs" (For example the corps in the position may not retreat), which can be counterd at the expense of some 25-50 AP and the dissmissal of the corps or army commander in site [:)]

The testers brought up the idea of random events and it just wasn't accepted as being too complex of a concept to add in at the time. Who know's what might happen down the road though.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

There is a reason for the high cost of reactivation and that is to prevent the Soviet player from bringing his full army to bear too quickly. Also since you can't disband static units, the idea of disbanding them and building cheaper ones don't work. You can build new ones, but if you have too many on the map, your truck pool won't support them all and their mp's will be affected.

The idea of cutting the ap's in half was only a suggestion though, I doubt Gary will even go along with that.

It is always a problem with wargames that the pace of operations will tend to be higher than historical unless players are limited somehow. However, I think Soviet offensive capabilities should be restricted more by supply availability. The Static concept seems a bit artifical. After 1941 neither the Soviets nor the Germans could bring forward the supplies necessary for offensive operations on more than part of the front.

I suggest a system where armies can be activated for offensive operations. This would "cost" a number of supply points. Armies can be activated to different degrees, which would cost differing amounts. This would also nicely take care of HQ buildup, as that could be replaced by simply giving those Pz Groups the highest supply priority.

[Lieste]

Rechecked the values for supply given by Glantz for Second Kharkov.

At the end of the build-up, supply for the planned offensive was far worse than the requirement:

Offensive planning norms were 5.5 units of fire for artillery, 4.5 for direct fire weapons (of which (IIRC there were 2 and 1 'ready to use' respectively, the remainder in unit trains).
The actual holdings of artillery ammunition were less than 3 for any type in any of the participating armies, with an average of ~1.5 units of fire.

It seems as if the number of rounds of ammunition is very nearly as important as how many tubes there are, except for the very 'peak' of fighting - but for an on-going operation this is a very small proportion of opportunity and time.
Perhaps the (generally low) density of supply should be enforced more strongly to help reduce the ingame tempo? You already factor in railyard capacity for industry/soviet rail cap - you could use this to scale the supply/movement/evacuation.
Suitably tuned this could correlate offensive success against supply, rather than unit density (so long as sufficient is present to screen or penetrate the enemy position) - reducing the effectiveness of ad-hoc, unplanned attacks by large Soviet forces in 1941/42, but still allowing supplied, but scanty German defenses to do reasonably well into 1945, in limited counter-attacks/local offensives.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: henri51

I don't know if this has been suggested here before, but I think that the weather is one of the big problems because 1) It was the worst winter in 50 years; 2) both players know in advance exactly what the weather will be.

A way to make the game more interesting wold be to use weather records for say the past 50 years, and to have the game choose at random among those years, but neither player would know which year was chosen. This would avoid players planning each Winter move exactly. Another possibility is to have the month (say January) chosen at random among say 50 January months, which would introduce even more uncertainty.

Imagine if a Russian player plans on a certain date for Blizzard conditions, but instead he gets mud conditions! This would make the game more interesting by 1)Forcing players to plan for contingencies; 2) Forcing players to adapt their game for unforeseen conditions.

The same idea could be applied to other "what-if" game variations, for example, no 1937 purge or a deeper purge that also killed Zhukov, Rokossovsky and Vatutin, or an earlier or a later lend-lease, or an earlier Blitzkrieg. Such variations could be chosen by the player or chosen at random by the computer.

Henri

This is a TOP idea!!
The ability for both sides to know what is coming slews the game somewhat.

Perhaps some sort of weather predictions, for both sides to make some sort of gambit on what the next turns weather 'might' be.
The Airforces of both sides took a great deal of interest in what 'next weeks' weather was predicted to be

[Flaviusx]

Delatbabel, for whatever it is worth, I entirely agree with you on the AP situation in 1943 and the absurd reactivation costs involved with static units.

There are some workarounds for this, and the Soviet can crush the Germans in the stock 43 scenario if he does certain things, but the entire system as it presently stands is not ideal.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
It is always a problem with wargames that the pace of operations will tend to be higher than historical unless players are limited somehow. However, I think Soviet offensive capabilities should be restricted more by supply availability. The Static concept seems a bit artifical. After 1941 neither the Soviets nor the Germans could bring forward the supplies necessary for offensive operations on more than part of the front.

+1!

Supply is sometimes more of a limiting factor in what military forces can do than anything else. It was quite possibly the single largest limiting factor for the Germans over the course of the war, and had a very significant impact for both sides on the East Front.

This doesn't seem to be adequately represented in this game.

HQ build-up could be revamped as a way of sending supplies to a specific front in preparation for an attack. It doesn't do anything other than send supply to that HQ and its units that turn, and focus supply flow on that HQ and its units for the next few turns. Although you'd need an idea of how much supply you have available to do that with so you don't spread your supplies too thin - which shouldn't really be too hard.

If the overall availability of supplies is reduced, and that most of the time the supplies are allowed to build up (slowly!) for these offensives then you could represent the historical limitations more accurately.

Obviously some supplies would be going out to every unit every turn, but as long as they are just sitting there holding the line, their use of supply and (in particular) ammunition should be low. The system wouldn't try for 100% levels normally, some sort of comfortable maintenance level so they could defend effectively if attacked.

But if you want to go on the offensive, and thus really burn through ammo and other supplies, you need to bring forward stocks for that offensive. Facing a heavy offensive you should need to bring up extra supply for the defending units as well (in August and September, units all along the line stopped to resupply, but heavy attacks against AGC caused them to burn through ammo at an accelerated rate, and so while they repulsed the Soviet attacks, ended up with even less ammo available than when they started).

You don't (or at least shouldn't) have enough for the entire front, so you have to pick your battles.

Literally.

Right now I will most likely attack with EVERY unit that is in contact with the enemy, every turn except blizzard - usually a deliberate attack if I'm just trying to punch the enemy because he's there - and that is kinda silly.

[Lieste]

As noted above, in 1942, the Soviet supply level after build-up for the Kharkov operation was only 1.5 times the unit of fire on average, with some well below a unit of fire. This against a supply requirement of 5.5 units of fire for artillery and 4.5 units for most other weapons.

This is when supply was 'good', and stockpiles were being built... in areas of troop concentration, the supply density must fall from that which could be attained elsewhere unless exceptional efforts are made.

[Chris10]

ORIGINAL: Sabre21
There are some things that for WitE won't change, like the 10 mile per hex scale or the fact that we use an IGOUGO system. That won't change either. Nor will you see phasers, photon torpedoes, nor heavy armored vehicles like you see below

Some reasonable country and division type related unit sprites with pop up info boxes with an on/off function for nato symbols and a coloured frame around them (green,yellow,orange,red) for indicating instant unit strength and combat readiness and a sprite/symbol swap depending on zoom level + 1 additional zoom-in level are some reasonable game improovements who certainly could make the game more accessable and appealing to more no hardcore hexgamers.

That said..when having more than 1 unit on hex only the strongest could be displayed dy default and the others get invisible and on selecting a certain unit the selected unit sprite is displayed...

[Omat]

Hello

I don`t know where to post this problem there for I post it her. In tech forum it seems the wrong froum because nobody reacted.

GC 1941-1945 the Italian "Autotransportabile IT Corps" don’t have a leader assign. Therefore never a leader can be assgigne to this corps...

In the "Operation Barbbarrossa" scenario Zingales is in command. So I suggest to change it the same way.

Here are some pictures and a save where you see the problem:

tm.asp?m=2832703

Omat

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

I don`t know where to post this problem there for I post it her. In tech forum it seems the wrong froum because nobody reacted.

GC 1941-1945 the Italian "Autotransportabile IT Corps" don’t have a leader assign. Therefore never a leader can be assgigne to this corps...3 solutions:

- delete this corps from the GC 1941-1945 or
- assign a leader even if it not historically the right one or
- change the code. If this happen it should be possible to change the leader for free

Here are some pictures and a save where you see the problem:

tm.asp?m=2832703

Omat

I'll get it noted over on the tester forum.

[Tarhunnas]

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC.

To limit the use of very deep defensive lines, I suggest some limit on how much fortifications can be built. There has to be a balance her, it should be possible to build Kusrk-like defensive belts, but OTOH we don't want the whole map to look like Kursk.

So, some alternative suggestions.

1. Limit fortifications to level 2 fortifications for hexes not adjacent to enemy hexes unless either within say 2 or 3 hexes from a city or in a hex with a FZ. This would still make it possible to build defensive lines, but it would take the expenditure of APs for the FZs.

2. Make it cost something to build fortifications. After all, it is more than just dug trenches, they require mines and barbed wire and concrete. Make it cost 1 AP for each level 3 or more fortification. Maybe not practicable, because you would need some kind of interface for the playe to control this.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC.

To limit the use of very deep defensive lines, I suggest some limit on how much fortifications can be built. There has to be a balance her, it should be possible to build Kusrk-like defensive belts, but OTOH we don't want the whole map to look like Kursk.

So, some alternative suggestions.

1. Limit fortifications to level 2 fortifications for hexes not adjacent to enemy hexes unless either within say 2 or 3 hexes from a city or in a hex with a FZ. This would still make it possible to build defensive lines, but it would take the expenditure of APs for the FZs.

2. Make it cost something to build fortifications. After all, it is more than just dug trenches, they require mines and barbed wire and concrete. Make it cost 1 AP for each level 3 or more fortification. Maybe not practicable, because you would need some kind of interface for the playe to control this.

This has been an issue for quite some time and honestly I don't know the best answer for it. The time to build forts has been extended and there are some limitations already in place and have been since release. Players still manage though to build massive in-depth defenses that make it tough for either side to break thru. It's a pretty tough balance to make sure that the Soviets aren't just over run prior to the first winter but then ensure that the Germans in 42 have a chance at making historical gains.

We've discussed this in length on the tester forum at one time or another. Ap cost was one possible solution but nothing definitive has yet been decided. Other issues have taken precedence so far.

[Michael T]

I would really like the morale of air units displayed on the list when assigning to an airfield. At the moment you have ready and experience displayed. PLEASE can morale be added.
Here is what I have to do to select an airgroup with a high enough morale when assigning to an airfield. And each turn I might be assigning 50+ groups (I rotate when morale gets too low).

1. Go in to the Commanders Report
2. Select say all MIG's in Reserve.
3. Note down by hand the units with a suitablely high morale for service in the front.
4. Go back to the airfield.
5. Hit assign.
6. Search through the list looking for eg 156 IAP or whatever.
It's a royal pain!

If I could simply see morale listed next to RDY and EXP then it would save soooo much time.

Maybe I am missing an easier way? If so please enlighten me. When assigning an air unit to an airfield via the map I like to know a units ready aircraft, its exp and morale.

I suspect I might be missing something because surely this would be an issue with other players.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Sabre21
We've discussed this in length on the tester forum at one time or another. Ap cost was one possible solution but nothing definitive has yet been decided. Other issues have taken precedence so far.

One thought is that - as you likely know - most board games don't allow for unlimited entrenchment. Usually you aren't allowed to entrench unless the unit is relatively close to the enemy, or perhaps an important location. Simply digging a bunch of trenches in the middle of nowhere because the enemy MIGHT make it this far is apparently not approved of in war time (better things to do).

Actually, if you are entrenching far behind the lines, you are sending the message you expect to need to fight this far back. Which would be bad for morale, and a "defeatist mentality" which could result in a trip to a Gulag. So there is a political reason that may have been a significant limitation on unlimited entrenchment (although some preparations were made, again at key places).

Also it should be remembered that building these fortifications wouldn't exactly be easy work. Units entrenching - or at least working hard at entrenching as opposed to regular position preparation a unit might make anywhere it camps - could well keep fatigue up, lead to attrition losses through injury and accident, and consume supplies at a higher rate than regular garrison duty (a person working hard needs more calories than someone who is just doing light duty and maybe patrols).

Perhaps a unit will only dig to fort level 1 on its own (much like what security detachments seem to do)? But to entrench further requires them to be in actual entrench mode, whereupon all sorts of effects could be activated (only works within X hexes of an enemy unit or Y hexes of a city hex, and the previously mentioned fatigue/ supply/ attrition issues). And of course then the unit couldn't be refitting or a reserve unit if its entrenching.

And further, it could be argued that to reach level four entrenchment requires a level of equipment not typically found in a military unit. That could be considered beyond just digging holes and trenches, but significant fortification, so a combat unit must have a construction unit attached (at least available to their immediate HQ).

Not sure if any or even all of these ideas would fix the problem entirely, but might be a step towards correcting it - sadly it also includes another level of actions a player has to keep track of.

That's my thoughts on the subject. Hope some of it helps.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC.

To limit the use of very deep defensive lines, I suggest some limit on how much fortifications can be built. There has to be a balance her, it should be possible to build Kusrk-like defensive belts, but OTOH we don't want the whole map to look like Kursk.

So, some alternative suggestions.

1. Limit fortifications to level 2 fortifications for hexes not adjacent to enemy hexes unless either within say 2 or 3 hexes from a city or in a hex with a FZ. This would still make it possible to build defensive lines, but it would take the expenditure of APs for the FZs.

2. Make it cost something to build fortifications. After all, it is more than just dug trenches, they require mines and barbed wire and concrete. Make it cost 1 AP for each level 3 or more fortification. Maybe not practicable, because you would need some kind of interface for the playe to control this.

I second the statement. I made a very good 41 against a PBEM noob (Leningrad + 4,5 M losses) and I'm facing a Kursk like front in summer 42 that I cannot break, including massing 4 Pz armies, all aerial support, all pioneers, ...

Not very sure about the solutions though ...