European Theatres of Operations

[GrumpyMel]

Thanks for the feedback guys, it's very helpful. I've been a little busy, so a bit slow on replying. Actualy doing a fair amount of work on the scenerio.

Re: The Bloch 210 and other SFT's. I didn't really design each SFT with the idea that they would neccesarly be usefull to the players, although that is ideal. There are certain SFT's that are in the game simply because that's what the country historicaly had in it's force pool at the start of the game, even if it was a very crappy option [;)]. The Bloch and Amiot are in, because that's what the French (as well as some minors) had. I don't really expect players will build much more of those, and I'm fine with that. I just wanted to represent a good feel (even if I didn't get all models in) for the kind of forces the country had available to it at start. What the players do from there is upto them... and I entirely expect in many cases they'll make smarter build decisions then some of thier historical counterparts [;)]

[GrumpyMel]

Re: The Bren Carrier. The big difference between the Bren and the M3A1 Scout Car it that the Bren is a TRACKED vehicle and the Scout Car is WHEELED. The Scout Car was actualy intended to fill the same sort of role for the US as an armored car, in fact it upgrades to the M8 Greyhound later on. That being said, I screwed up with the carry capacity with it. For it's role, it really should have had a much smaller carry capacity. So I tweaked it down to 5. Also the Allies were supposed to have an M2 halftrack (predeccessor to the M3) availble to them, that had a bug preventing it from being built. I fixed this and did some more tweaking with halftracks to better represent thier actual qualities and the role they played. I think, in general, you'll find each has some aspect that makes it usefull in comparison to other models. Note that I would have been fine if it hadn't worked out that way (Re: the Bloch in the above post) but taking a second look at things... it's pretty clear there was a good basis for allowing that.

I really do appreciate the feedback on SFT's guys... with the number of models represented in the game... it's only through play-testing that this stuff will come out.... so definately keep me posted when you notice things like this. In some cases it may be working as intended...but often it won't be.

[GrumpyMel]

Re: Bombers vs Strike Aircraft. Yup, that's something I clearly need to rework. Basicaly I had assigned the same values that were used against bombers (I'm guessing the game assumes they get hit on the ground). That clearly messes up the situation for Heavy Escort Fighters, like the 110 and the Blenheim IF which were designed and effective at intercepting enemy bombers.
Thanks for the heads up Bombur.

What I will do to fix it is to reduce the Attack rating of bombers vs strike craft to make it more in line with how they perform vs fighters. In reality, bombers mostly disrupted air operations by damaging runways and airfield facilities (structural damage) rather then knocking out the actual planes themselves. So bombers will still retain the ability to do that via thier anti-structure ratings. I want to keep the type for these aircraft as Strike Craft...as they really did fly very differently then the nimble single engine planes.

[GrumpyMel]

Re: Carrier Air. I took the carriers verbatim from vanilla AT... which is why I think you are seeing things the way they are now. It's obviously something I need to fix. It shouldn't be too tough to fix by tweaking the capacity of carriers and the weight of naval aircraft to make things work more realisticaly.

Likely this will wait until I have a chance to get more of the naval aircraft in. Bombur, I'll try to get as many of the ones on your list in as I can. It's going to take a little time to get to...since I've got alot of different things I need to still build into the scenerio...but they are definately on the list of things that will make it in...just a matter of getting to them.

Note, I may also need to put Greenland/Icleand in at some point...as I want to make sure, that at least for the long range aircraft..there is an air route to fly from the US/Canada to the UK. For short range craft, they'll need to be shipped via naval transfer.

[GrumpyMel]

Other work I've done with the scenerio...

In addition to some bug fixes, I tweaked the War Footing/Diplomacy Cards to be more expensive...as it was, it was too easy to get those up built up quickly if a country focused on it. It's still doable...but more of a sacrifice to do so now.

I've added functionality for Vichy into the scenario. Once the Axis capture Paris they get the establish Vichy card and have upto 4 turns to play it. It works similarly to the way WAW does...but I added a bit of a twist. There is a random chance that the French will refuse the Axis demands and fight on. Also, even if mainland France folds...each of her colonies (Morocco, Algeria/Tunisia, Lebanon/Syria) has a random chance of going Free French or Vichy. This way neither player can exactly predict the political situation and is forced to react to it as it unfolds. Should also help make games play out differently each time.

I'm currently working on reworking Winter. The 50 percent readiness hit seemed a little too harsh to me. Also players didn't have good feedback as to which hexes were getting nailed by Winter and which weren't. What I've done is reduced the penalty some...and added Winter terrain like WAW has. So you can see exactly what hexes are getting hit by Winter effects. For Winter terrain most units have some movement penalty with the severity depending on movement type ( wheeled really gets hit, foot and tracked less so). I also instituted combat penalties... most ground units have a 20 percent penalty to attack but defend as normal. Aircraft suffer very large penalties for both attack and defense. Alpine units have no movement or combat penalties but they still suffer from readiness loss (don't see a way in the engine I can avoid that).

What I'm hoping to accomplish with this is to make Winter a time where it is definately more difficult to conduct major offensives...but you can still conduct some operations. Also nations can make build choices to be a bit more effective at Winter Operations by putting more Alpine troops in thier force pools (I'll probably go through the starting Finn forces and switch alot of them to Alpine to better reflect thier Winter combat abilities). Furthermore I wanted to simulate the fact that while air-power was very important in general...there WERE times when it simply wasn't as much of a factor... like when the Germans took advantage of bad weather during the start of the Bulge Offensive, which neutralized the importance of Allied air superiorty.
Although it's rather ahistorical to do for the entire Winter... in the absence of a real weather system (which seems a bit too difficult for me to attempt under the current engine)... it seemed like a reasonable compromise. I'd be interested in your guys thoughts on this? (Note: Your still playing under the old Winter system).

Up Next: Murmansk Convoys and Lend-Lease. I'm planning on working this into the scenario based on a suggestion that Grymme gave me.

[GrumpyMel]

Finally...not to overload you with questions [:D] but...

What would you like to see happen with the Naval Game?

Obviously I'm going to be reworking Carriers, adding more naval air and ASW/Recon planes.

Beyond that...

Do you think it's important for me to put in a WAW style construction method (i.e. Ship Hulls) for capital ships?

Do you want to see a more detailed breakdown of ship types classes? (i.e. Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Battle Cruisers, Pocket Battleships? Etc) Do you think it's important to go down to actual classes (i.e Bismark/Tripitz, Hood Class, etc) or is generic types good enough? If so, what are your feelings about the capabilties of each?

Are there important naval SFT types not previosly mentioned that are missing...like e-boats/Torpedo Boats, etc? If so, what roles should they play?

I pretty much kept the naval game the same as vanilla AT...as by far it's my weakest area of expertiese. I have no problem beefing it up and changing it some...but I think I'll need some guidence as to what changes to make...as I'm probably only fit to play Admiral of a bath tub [:D]

[82ndtrooper]

Its hard for me to answer some of your questions at this point. I need to see how the land war in France works out. Will Germany just steam roll through France or will France be able to put up a fight.

Right now I do think there will be a lot of carriers in this game early on. That may change with your changes to the war footing cards. But in any game I play as the west I tend to build carriers.
The ship hulls may be worth looking into though as long as they don't take as long to pop as they do in WaW sometimes they can take 15 turns and more. Maybe just increasing the price would be sufficient to slow them down some.

The generic ship classes should be just fine and would add some extra flavor to the naval part.
 The winter changes will be welcome.
I will give more feed back as we play a little more

[krupp_88mm]

will their really be alot of carriers? what happens to the pilot restrictions, can you build a huge carrier fleet and still have enough pilots?.. should make people think twice about going heavy carriers, also carrier air destroying subs is slightly ridiculous to say the least, id recommend if possible reducing the ability of naval air to hammer subs

although plane did sink alot of subs, they primarily were for spotting subs, and directing the destroyers and PB to attack, maybe thats the way the game should work, maybe tweak air attacks on subs dow a little, also seems cruisers are way to powerful at AA, id recommend lowering it a bit

[82ndtrooper]

well let me say I was wrong about how many carriers. I really took a look at it this last turn and realized I had 11 production centers tied up into making the carriers and more importantly the planes to put on them. I cant continue this much effort and have to stop. each carrier holds 5 planes and it takes 1-2 turns to make a fighter and two turns minimum to make a torpedo plane and at lest 3 turns to make the carrier itself.  So for the few carriers I was able to make in ten turns I had dedicated a lot of production. More than I should have. I have to start making other units or I will be in serious trouble.

So maybe this is a self correcting problem and as we play I may find that I hurt myself.

[Bombur]

What would you like to see happen with the Naval Game?

-More ships, realistic OOB´s, reworked carrier capacity, naval aircraft, naval interdictioon by aircraft....

Obviously I'm going to be reworking Carriers, adding more naval air and ASW/Recon planes.

-Great[:D]!!!!!

Do you think it's important for me to put in a WAW style construction method (i.e. Ship Hulls) for capital ships?

-No!!! However, I think you should define realistic costs for ships. I would suggest 1/ton. It would result in 20-30000 for aircraft carriers and 50000 for the Bismarck!!!!

Do you want to see a more detailed breakdown of ship types classes? (i.e. Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Battle Cruisers, Pocket Battleships? Etc) Do you think it's important to go down to actual classes (i.e Bismark/Tripitz, Hood Class, etc) or is generic types good enough? If so, what are your feelings about the capabilties of each?

-I would like to see actual classes and even some hypothetical ones (The Graf Zeppelin, for instance)

Are there important naval SFT types not previosly mentioned that are missing...like e-boats/Torpedo Boats, etc? If so, what roles should they play?

-Maybe frigates and corvettes for convoy escort duties

I pretty much kept the naval game the same as vanilla AT...as by far it's my weakest area of expertiese. I have no problem beefing it up and changing it some...but I think I'll need some guidence as to what changes to make...as I'm probably only fit to play Admiral of a bath tub [:D]

Try to look at this site, maybe it could help you
http://www.navypedia.org/

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel
Re: Bombers vs Strike Aircraft. Yup, that's something I clearly need to rework. Basicaly I had assigned the same values that were used against bombers (I'm guessing the game assumes they get hit on the ground). That clearly messes up the situation for Heavy Escort Fighters, like the 110 and the Blenheim IF which were designed and effective at intercepting enemy bombers.
Thanks for the heads up Bombur.

What I will do to fix it is to reduce the Attack rating of bombers vs strike craft to make it more in line with how they perform vs fighters. In reality, bombers mostly disrupted air operations by damaging runways and airfield facilities (structural damage) rather then knocking out the actual planes themselves. So bombers will still retain the ability to do that via thier anti-structure ratings. I want to keep the type for these aircraft as Strike Craft...as they really did fly very differently then the nimble single engine planes.

I understand your point, but I think there is a good reason to rate these planes as fighters (I have the same doubt when I introduced fighter bombers in my mod). The vulnerability of a "pure" ground attack plane vs. bombers is in the fact that these countries will be grounded when attacked (a Stuka won´t scramble to defend his airfield aganst B-25´s...). On the other hand, fighter bombers (like the Bf-110) will be most likely airborne, so the Bomber vs. fighter-bomber works in a different way, as compared with Bomber vs. Bomber. Of course, you made your fighter bombers Front line aircraft, so they will be airborne (and inflict losses on bombers), however, they will suffer abnormal losses to bombers (because they will be considered "grounded") and, even worse, they will suffer small losses to enemy fighters, because the escoring fighters will "strafe" the "grounded planes" while the "grounded planes" will shot them down like they were airborne (a Bf-109F, for instance, in attack, will have 30% less power against an strike aircraft compared with the combat power against a true fighter). So an unintended consequence of making these planes "strike aircraft" is that they become better fighters(?!). By decreasing the attack values of bomber vs. strike aircraft you will also make "normal" strike aircraft less vulnerable to bombers, so there are too many unintended consequences and the best way (I think) is to rate fighter bombers as fighters.

[GrumpyMel]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel
Re: Bombers vs Strike Aircraft. Yup, that's something I clearly need to rework. Basicaly I had assigned the same values that were used against bombers (I'm guessing the game assumes they get hit on the ground). That clearly messes up the situation for Heavy Escort Fighters, like the 110 and the Blenheim IF which were designed and effective at intercepting enemy bombers.
Thanks for the heads up Bombur.

What I will do to fix it is to reduce the Attack rating of bombers vs strike craft to make it more in line with how they perform vs fighters. In reality, bombers mostly disrupted air operations by damaging runways and airfield facilities (structural damage) rather then knocking out the actual planes themselves. So bombers will still retain the ability to do that via thier anti-structure ratings. I want to keep the type for these aircraft as Strike Craft...as they really did fly very differently then the nimble single engine planes.

I understand your point, but I think there is a good reason to rate these planes as fighters (I have the same doubt when I introduced fighter bombers in my mod). The vulnerability of a "pure" ground attack plane vs. bombers is in the fact that these countries will be grounded when attacked (a Stuka won´t scramble to defend his airfield aganst B-25´s...). On the other hand, fighter bombers (like the Bf-110) will be most likely airborne, so the Bomber vs. fighter-bomber works in a different way, as compared with Bomber vs. Bomber. Of course, you made your fighter bombers Front line aircraft, so they will be airborne (and inflict losses on bombers), however, they will suffer abnormal losses to bombers (because they will be considered "grounded") and, even worse, they will suffer small losses to enemy fighters, because the escoring fighters will "strafe" the "grounded planes" while the "grounded planes" will shot them down like they were airborne (a Bf-109F, for instance, in attack, will have 30% less power against an strike aircraft compared with the combat power against a true fighter). So an unintended consequence of making these planes "strike aircraft" is that they become better fighters(?!). By decreasing the attack values of bomber vs. strike aircraft you will also make "normal" strike aircraft less vulnerable to bombers, so there are too many unintended consequences and the best way (I think) is to rate fighter bombers as fighters.

Yeah, I see your point. Alright I shifted them over to fighters and adjusted thier hit points downwards to compensate for the fact they weren't as nimble as regular fighters. I did give a couple of them a 5% modify kill to retreat rating aside from that, to represent the fact while they got shot up more easly, they had a better chance to make it home when damaged compared to many of the lighter fighters.

So planes in this class that were modified to fighters were: BF-110C, Blenheim IF, Potez 63, Bristol Beaufighter, Dehavallind Mosquito, Blackburn Skua (functioned as naval fighter), SBC Helldiver (naval fighter), SBD Dauntless (naval fighter), Fairy Fulmar (naval fighter)

Wasn't 100 percent sure about the naval planes...but I think they would fall into the category as well...since they usualy were providing cover for the Torpedo Bombers, even though they were divebombers themselves.

[Bombur]

So planes in this class that were modified to fighters were: BF-110C, Blenheim IF, Potez 63, Bristol Beaufighter, Dehavallind Mosquito, Blackburn Skua (functioned as naval fighter), SBC Helldiver (naval fighter), SBD Dauntless (naval fighter), Fairy Fulmar (naval fighter)

-Agree with you, except on the SBD and the SBC (both the biplane SBC and the 1943 SB2C). These planes weren´t fighters, they were "pure" strike aircraft. There are some reports on SBD´s being used as CAP (in Coral Sea, for instance), but it didn´t happen frequently and they weren´t effective in this role. On the SB2C, there was no need for them to be used as fighters, as the USA decks were full of F6F´s and Corsairs. The situation was different from the Skua/Roc, which were intended as naval fighter bombers. I´m not sure about the Fulmar (and the Firefly). It seems to me that these planes were "pure" fighters. I didn´t noticed if you included the F4F/F6F/F4U in the game, did you?

[82ndtrooper]

we are still doing turns but with winter there is nothing much to report except that winter is brutal. 90% of all production right now is either supply or PP.

[82ndtrooper]

Grumpy

what happens to the french fleets when vichy is established ?
if I have already incorporated them into my Royal Navy fleets will they disappear ? and could they possibly take the British ships with them ?

PS: winter is brutal

[Bombur]

Winter is over, now I´m going to liberate Denmark...
Btw, I think movement rates need to be reworked. Considering the time/space scale, units are too slow. It´s hard to replay the Blitzkrieg (and latter will be harder for Soviets and Allies to counterattack...)

[GrumpyMel]

ORIGINAL: 82ndtrooper

Grumpy

what happens to the french fleets when vichy is established ?
if I have already incorporated them into my Royal Navy fleets will they disappear ? and could they possibly take the British ships with them ?

PS: winter is brutal

Vichy isn't in the version you guys are playing, so you don't need to worry about that for this game. As far as the latest version, I only gave France half it's starting Navy...so those will stay French (if they aren't in port in France) when Vichy is established....and the new Vichy regime gets the other half added to it when it's created. Figured that was the easiest way to deal with it.

[82ndtrooper]

Not much I can comment on yet. I am very eager to see how this plays out though. As you can see my forces in France appear to be very formidable. It looks like Germany will have a real hard time taking France but I just don't know how well the french will perform. Their war footing is only at 45% I think, And I don't know how much that will effect their combat effectiveness. They may collapse fast.

I am very curious about how the air war will work out in both land and naval. I want to find a German fleet and attack it haha.

The intercept range of most fighters is around 12 if i remember right so anywhere you bomb you will have to deal with interceptors, that should make it very interesting.

I am keeping roughly 30% of the British air force in Britain to simulate what happened historically. I want to have enough in reserve to defend the home islands.

hopefully next turn I can start producing units again, I really need to build up a army in England asap. as it is I have no British land units to help France out with. so what you see in France is pretty much it.

I also cant wait to see how North Africa works out.

[82ndtrooper]

Grumpy

I have noticed something strange with what a unit can carry, it seems like it flops back and forth. what I mean is you should be able to look at a unit and see something like load 20/50 meaning that the unit can carry 50 and there is only 20 on it. but I have found that it dosnt allways seem to be that way and I have to actually try and transfer something to a unit to see what its weight and carry totals are.

also notice in this pic that I have no infantry loaded and it still shows 5/20 and it should show 0/5

[GrumpyMel]

ORIGINAL: 82ndtrooper

Grumpy

I have noticed something strange with what a unit can carry, it seems like it flops back and forth. what I mean is you should be able to look at a unit and see something like load 20/50 meaning that the unit can carry 50 and there is only 20 on it. but I have found that it dosnt allways seem to be that way and I have to actually try and transfer something to a unit to see what its weight and carry totals are.

also notice in this pic that I have no infantry loaded and it still shows 5/20 and it should show 0/5

I believe this is a quirk of the AT Engine, not anything to do with the scenerio. It has to do with whether the SFT has carry capacity or not and how the system reports it when no passangers are loaded.

In the picture you are showing the unit has a carry capacity of 5 (from the tank, the AC has no carry capacity) and it's weight is 20 (I believe from the AC). Once you pop some passangers onto the vehicles I think it reports correctly.

Try it in WAW or vanilla AT and I think you'll notice the same thing.