1.03 patch preview

[doomtrader]

Here is something what might be interesting for you:

[wolf14455]

Looking forward to it. Keep up the good work doom.
Will DAK convoy work now?

[Rasputitsa]

Waiting in anticipation, might we ask when ? [:)]

[doomtrader]

@Swedewolf, I just made few tests and looks like it's working.
@Rasputitsa, Should be delivered to Matrix this week.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
@Swedewolf, I just made few tests and looks like it's working.
@Rasputitsa, Should be delivered to Matrix this week.

Wow ! that's quick. any changelog info.[:)]

[doomtrader]

This is quick this time, as we have focused on fixing mostly.

Here is the changelog:

2012-10-01 [v1.03]
--Fixed
Number of people and equipment in units now displayed correctly
Fleets without any naval units assigned are now automatically disbanded at the end of the turn

--Gameplay
Now if a unit is returned to the forcepool with a commander, then the commander is reassigned from the unit
Changed supply schedule, now convoys are perforemd after selecting supply sources by units
It is nowpossible to see full description for all events

--Features
It is possible now that the Disembark will fail every time a unit will try to unload from a sea zone where enemy fleet has got advantage

--GUI
If a unit is hidden under the Fog of War, then clicking on a hex with that unit does not reveal Unit Panel

--Other
If unit has got -1,-1 coordinates assigned it is always put into the reserve, even if the proper value is not entered

[wolf14455]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

@Swedewolf, I just made few tests and looks like it's working.
@Rasputitsa, Should be delivered to Matrix this week.

good news

[gwgardner]

Haha, well, let everyone try their Sealion now, with that new 'feature.' IF the Royal Navy can maintain sea superiority in the Channel and North Sea, and IF the Luftwaffe fails to gain air superiority, then ....

[Rasputitsa]

Thanks for the info, looks good. [:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
Haha, well, let everyone try their Sealion now, with that new 'feature.' IF the Royal Navy can maintain sea superiority in the Channel and North Sea, and IF the Luftwaffe fails to gain air superiority, then ....

Hmmm, if you have to maintain superiority in a sea zone to prevent a landing, you place your fleet in harms way for a landing that may not take place. The RN did not parade in the Channel prior to a potential Seal Lion, but were available to move from other safer sea areas, if a landing was attempted.

Interesting to see how 'sea superiority' works and where the fleets have to be, to maintain that superiority, e.g. will being in port, establish superiority in a sea zone. Air superiority is calculated on where the fighter airbases are situated, whether the air units actually fly, or not, should the same apply to fleets based in the ports of a sea zone and should fleets in adjacent sea zones be taken into account for sea superiority.

Either way, the game is making progress, which is good.[:)]

[wolf14455]

Also, will we get an allert if an amphibious force is in this controlled waters? So bombing and naval reinforcement can be brought in. I for one miss to check all seazones all the time especcially when tired and only want another turn and again and ..... [>:]
[:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Swedewolf
Also, will we get an allert if an amphibious force is in this controlled waters? So bombing and naval reinforcement can be brought in. I for one miss to check all seazones all the time especcially when tired and only want another turn and again and ..... [>:]
[:)]

I think the solution is to introduce a delay before an amphibious operation could be launched, firstly because it is more realistic, it takes weeks to prepare forces and select beaches for an amphibious landing. Secondly, the preparation time gives opportunities for the defender to fly air reconn over sea zones and ports to detect if a landing is being prepared (or the attacker to stop such flights with air superiority).

Ideally it would be good if this was an option that could be built into the game, otherwise it could be covered by house rules for PBEM, or solo play. I have a framework of time delays in first choosing a sea zone to launch a landing, then a time to load forces into amphibious fleets and select specific landing beaches, before being able to actually launch the attack.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3175683

For a single division landing against one landing hex (Operation Jubilee -Dieppe) chose the Sea Zone where the landing will take place, wait 6 game turns (represents planning and preparation), before any landing can be made. 4 turns from the planned landing date, select landing hex and load amphibious fleet (hold in port), this represents final plans approved, assembly of shipping and training of ground units. After the overall 6 turns delay period the landing can be attempted, any change of landing beach introduces the 4 turn beach select delay again.

For a Shingle-Anzio landing (1 Corps, 1 landing hex) the figures are Sea Zone selection delay 9 turns, with load and select beach 6 turns from landing.

For a Torch/Husky landings (2 Corps over 2 landing hexes) the figures are delay from Sea Zone selection is 12 turns from landing date, with load forces and select beaches 8 turns from landing date. This delay is the actual timing of the Torch landings, which was historically quite straightforward from the Churchill/Roosevelt and Combined Chiefs decision, to execution of the landings and is the basis of the calculation of the other landing combinations.

For an Overlord-D-Day landing (3, or more, Corps landing over 3, or more, hexes) the delay from sea zone selection, wait 24 turns, chose landing hexes, load forces, with 16 turns to go, then you can launch the invasion.

The loading of amphibious fleets up to 16 turns ahead does not necessarily represent troops actually on-board ships for this long, but for game purposes, it represents shipping being assembled (over 5,000 vessels for D-Day), ground units allocated and in training for landings and not available for other tasks. They will be vulnerable to attack and may take losses after being loaded, but such things happened, as in the 'Tiger Convoy' and Slapton Sands exercise, prior to D-Day. Air and Naval superiority becomes essential for a landing if this type, as it should be.

24 game turns (each game turn just over a week) may not seem much to plan and mount an operation the size of D-Day, but planners were always working on plans for operations many of which did not take place, for a cross Channel invasion, planning started in 1942, with many operations proposed and cancelled. The 24 game turns represents the decision to make this particular landing (Overlord), on about the 6th June, with these particular forces, on these particular beaches, in Normandy. The player can chose other beaches and other forces, but it is assumed that much of the planning would have been done earlier, just as for D-Day itself.

These figures are chosen for my own use, based on a review of several of the major landings carried out by the Allies and the Germans (Weserbung-Norway). The historical planning and preparation times are confused by operations being cancelled, then revived, political delays, etc., the actual delay times are open to discussion, but I think some form of delay is much better and more realistic than nothing at all.

I am waiting for the next updates to test the idea in a modified Gotterdammerung scenario starting in late 1943.[:)]

[wolf14455]

I like the idea of delay and can it be implemented I would love it.
And ofcource some intel to defender if he got passive air recon in the area, forexample.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Swedewolf
I like the idea of delay and can it be implemented I would love it.
And ofcource some intel to defender if he got passive air recon in the area, forexample.

It can be implemented in PBEM, or solo games against the AI, you just have to chose to impose these delay restrictions on yourself. The AI will not have the same restrictions, but it needs as much help as it can get. You can make your own games more realistic and make it more of a challenge.

Doomtrader has not responded to the subject of amphibious landings, but it would be better if the game system could manage the delay feature and record the player selection of sea zones and landing hexes. The information on what sea zones are under threat, with the player choices, could be used to make the AI's reaction to invasion threats better. It doesn't have to be told the exact point of intended landing, but prepare to defend sea areas and the possible landing hexes under threat, as would happen in reality. The problem now is that invasion is so quick there is not time for the AI to react and 'Sea Lion' goes ahead against almost no opposition.[:)]

[doomtrader]

I think we have implemented the delay in 1.01

Code: Select all

It is now possible to set up amphibious ionvasion after movement delay for one turn, by changig AmphibiousAssaultAfterMovement = 0/1 value in consts.ini 

Isn't it working?

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

I think we have implemented the delay in 1.01

Code: Select all

It is now possible to set up amphibious ionvasion after movement delay for one turn, by changig AmphibiousAssaultAfterMovement = 0/1 value in consts.ini 

Isn't it working?

To be effective and to be more realistic the delay has to be more than 1 turn, can the 'const' file be adjusted to give a longer delay and, if so, what would the file entry look like ?

Does the 'AmphibiousAssaultAfterMovement' delay have to be taken at sea, off the target beach, before the assault takes place, or can the delay be imposed after the amphibious fleets have been created, but whilst still in port, which would be more realistic.

The feature of having the player chose a sea zone, in advance, where a landing is planned to take place, provides data that could be used to allow the AI to prepare a more credible response to an invasion threat. Is that something that might be built into the game in the future ?[:)]

[gwgardner]

Doomtrader, please advise on this:

--Features
It is possible now that the Disembark will fail every time a unit will try to unload from a sea zone where enemy fleet has got advantage

What constitutes the 'advantage?'

[doomtrader]

@Rasputitsa, such change is rather impossible.

@gwgardner, I dont remember the exact algortihm, but the game compares the strength of both sides. It considers the maximum and minimum damage caused by the vessel and the fleet level then compares it for both sides. The higher the advantage of the defender, the smaller the chance for succesfull disembarking.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
@Rasputitsa, such change is rather impossible.

OK, I can still have a more realistic delay, by self imposed restrictions on launching amphibious operations against the AI, in solo play. It is a shame that the AI cannot be made to be more responsive in defence, when the sea zone to be attacked could be made known to the system and maybe the beach hexes in that zone could be temporarily treated as though they were rail hexes for defence purposes only, as the AI knows how to defend rail hexes.[:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
@gwgardner, I dont remember the exact algortihm, but the game compares the strength of both sides. It considers the maximum and minimum damage caused by the vessel and the fleet level then compares it for both sides. The higher the advantage of the defender, the smaller the chance for succesfull disembarking.

Does this only apply to fleets that are at sea, in a sea zone, because that would mean that you would have to keep fleets at sea and under potential air attack, waiting for an invasion that may never come, it could be an expensive defence strategy. Should fleets in adjacent sea zones be able to exert some influence on naval superiority. [:)]