WIE

[dhucul2011]

Back to the game for the first time in a year. I am hoping that its time for a new release whether it be Pacific, Napoleon or a Weapons and Warfare type upgrade on WIE.

Some comments on the 1939 scenario:

1. USSR getting infantry weapons 3 by late 1942? That's a little early.
2. The Allies have way too many DDs in 1940-1941. They should struggle to find DDs until early 1941. I can't have my U-Boat "happy time" with so many.
3. The supply rules are still a little complicated, especially for new players I think. An extra HQ provided in May 1941 would be a good start.
4. I routinely transfer the entire Italian army (except for Albania) to NA in 1940. There should be a script to punish this behaviour if Italy is left ungarrisoned.
5. Why does Finland join the Axis as soon as Germany DOWs? That's a little early.
6. Is the "Axis Attack Causes Shockwaves" script supposed to hit USSR NM? It should. I would suggest a 15-20% drop in NM that then starts to recover in 1942. That would also allow more historical Barbarossa gains by the Axis in 1941.

Thanks!

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: dhucul2011
4. I routinely transfer the entire Italian army (except for Albania) to NA in 1940. There should be a script to punish this behaviour if Italy is left ungarrisoned.

Try doing this against a human player and see how well it goes for you

[archmache]

1) If USSR gets lvl 3 infantry by 1942 it means they put chits into infantry weapons from the beginning of the game and never missed a turn. They will be lacking on warfare / command and control techs. Also a good Axis player will have vet 3 on every HQ by 1942 so the IW3 is almost necessary to even blunt an attack. The only way imo to break the Axis offensive is with heavy tanks, infantry corps can't attack into entrenched Axis armies.

2) I think the issue with the War in the Atlantic is that it is not too many destroyers but the RN has so many ships that the subs will be found so fast and then the destroyers clean it up. I almost think that something like a battleship or cruiser should not be able to even spot a sub unless there is a destroyer within 2 hexes or something. For example a carrier should not be able to "bomb" a sub after it has dived unless a destroyer is present since helicopters didn't exist. Re-balancing this would be a big effort but I think the naval warfare should get overhauled. For example is a destroyer runs into a battleship I think it should be an instant kill instead of the destroyer only taking 7 damage or something. The ASW warfare tech should be required for any non-destroyer to see a sub and then if it gets asw lvl 3 then they can spot sub from 2 hexes away or something.

3) Press S and supply will show. Press S again and you can see for the next turn. If you do this on hottest a couple time you will learn how it works. The short answer is that HQ on a city boosts supply. HQ can be boosted by another HQ - but this can only happen once and it is randomly assigned. If there is (red) number that shows the boost is occurring.

4) in PBEM Italy is so weak. In fact it is so weak that scripts have been added to give Italian units extra garrisons to prevent naval invasion. (you can gimmick AVL into north Italy to do massive NM drops)

5) Finland attacked Russia about 2 weeks after Barbarossa started. I think the way it is set up is that after June 22, Finland joins on declaration - before June 22 you have to get to certain distance of Leningrad. I'd have to check the scripts to be sure.

6) I agree. I think that within the 5 turns on the declaration of war Russia should not be able to operate units and have super reduced moral. This prevents the USSR player from instantly moving his forces to wear the expected blow will be. For example if the Axis player decides to go all out Army group South, the USSR player can just operate units down to blunt the attack from Leningrad. I think this ruins the cinematic effect of the chaos Barbarossa was in and completely negates the idea of "Russia being vast and taking time to move stuff around"

[Elessar2]

My idea was to let the sub's "retreat" range be their "diving" range (since they don't ever retreat in the normal way). Instead of diving 1-3 hexes away and being easily refound and attacked again, give them their submerged range (13 in vanilla iirc) & they'll likely escape the dragnet until the next turn.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

My idea was to let the sub's "retreat" range be their "diving" range (since they don't ever retreat in the normal way). Instead of diving 1-3 hexes away and being easily refound and attacked again, give them their submerged range (13 in vanilla iirc) & they'll likely escape the dragnet until the next turn.

Then you could have subs teleporting something like 65 hexes if they got attacked several times......

[Elessar2]

Potentially but not likely. In practice they'd probably be safe after the 2nd or 3rd dive at worst, somewhere within a 20 hex radius of where they started, escorts all out of moves. Point is diving's short 3 hex max. distance doesn't get them anywhere close to being out of danger.

[Taxman66]

So in your opinion subs should never be killed?

hmph.

[Elessar2]

Oh, they can still be killed. Surely there is a balance point between 3 hexes and an infinite number. Often it is the destroyers who have already run their attack which finds them again (also note that planes and carriers will auto spot them if in range in good weather). Plus for a large flotilla the concept of what a "kill" represents is kind of hazy; attrition and needing to sail back to base for repair & supply should model the sub war pretty well (reinforcement costs can be dialed up if need be).

[archmache]

I think subs should cost less but get killed quicker. That's how it was in the war at least. I also think a sub that is submerged should not be able to be attacked by anything other than a destroyer ... its just not historically accurate otherwise.