Peace in our times

[Eurisko]

Oh, and players which destroy one should get a small amount of money, like 200 gold (intelligence tortured out of captured operatives).

Britain and the US would have to decide if an operative at high risk of capture should just take his suicide pill (disband) to avoid being captured by the enemy.

[Eurisko]

Any updates on this?

Maybe even a new alpha for us to take a peek at?

[McMonkey]

I spent quite a lot of time placing Industrial terrain to make sure every city had an appropriate shield production in relation to its industrial importance in real life. After that I made sorted out food production so every city begins with a surplus of between 2 and 5. Some cities were previously on 0 while others were on 11! I think all this effort will be worthwhile in the long run.

Next up is to finalize the unit stats. After that I need to start adding events and tweaking the science rates to the desired settings. Once all this is done I will upload another Alpha for critique.

[McMonkey]

I completed the unit stats yesterday and have uploaded them to the SL Wiki:

ROTD Units test

I was hoping I could get a couple of people to check them over for mistakes and run some combat tests to see how they work out.

I am aiming for a balance where all units have a role and no one unit type is all powerful. On paper I think I may be close to this but in practice it may need some tweaking.

I decided to go with Eurisko's suggestion for a SOE type unit with spy functions and paradrop capability. This unit is known as Agent and can fulfil the role of Diplomat in peace time and spy/saboteur in war.

The graphic itself is an unholy fusion of Rommel from the Desert war with Lenin's head from Red October. The effect is a trench-coat wearing dude who can pass as a diplomat or agent, I hope:

[Eurisko]

I still think the "agent" unit should be available to the allies only.

No other power had an intelligence network even nearly comparable to that of the US and Britain, and those which did have somewhat functional intelligence agencies pretty much only employed agents to gather intelligence on troop movements and the like, not for acts of sabotage.

And, frankly, I think the "secret agent" unit in these kinds of scenarios has become a bit cliche.

I was more thinking something along the lines of an "auxilliary resistance" unit which would be able to pillage roads and factories, as the Free French did with the help of the British SOE.

The graphic of that unit should actually look a lot like that of the "partisan unit", except it could have a Sten (an OSS/SOE favorite) instead of a rifle.

However, I do agree that other nations should have a "non-combat" agent unit to gather intelligence (ie only scout on the map and investigate but not sabotage cities).

I think the maritime bomber unit is very pointless, seeing as how destroyers do the job just as well if not better, so a generic agent unit (with the current graphic) could be made available with normal diplomat abilities (except for stealing techs) and the flags of the current agent unit, and the "resistance auxilliary SOE/OSS" agent should be allies-only. And they both should have the submarine flag to be harder to spot, but infantry should be given the ability to spot submarines.

As for the V1, I think it should not have a range of 1. At around 1944, more than 80% of V1 missiles were shot down before they could hit their target by the RAF, so it should maybe have a movement of 3 and a range of 3 as well so it can be shot down in flight if the targetted nation is paying enough attention.

And bombers still seem pretty useless. They can't even kill a fortified infantry unit on a town square.

Other than that it looks very good.

[Jerec]

Originally posted by McMonkey
I was hoping I could get a couple of people to check them over for mistakes and run some combat tests to see how they work out.

I can only playtest today. After that I'm gone 'til Friday.

I decided to go with Eurisko's suggestion for a SOE type unit with spy functions and paradrop capability. This unit is known as Agent and can fulfil the role of Diplomat in peace time and spy/saboteur in war.

The graphic itself is an unholy fusion of Rommel from the Desert war with Lenin's head from Red October. The effect is a trench-coat wearing dude who can pass as a diplomat or agent, I hope:

Looks good.


I started off by testing the attack success of an Armored Inf vs the attack success of an Infantry Div. The result was that an Infantry Div is a better attacker. It simply has a better chance of winning than an Armored Inf. I suspect this is because the Infantry Div has 3 HP and 3 FP, whereas the Armored Inf only has 2. Is that what you wanted? What should the role of an Armored Inf be? In Appeasement, I used basic infantry to wear down entrenched Armored Inf, with my own Armored Inf to finish them off. In your scen's case, I would simply use Infantry Divisions and/or Mobile Artillery. The Armored Inf's and Motorized Inf's better movement isn't enough of a reason to build them, and their 2 HP and FP make them worse defenders/attackers than an Infantry Div. I can't see a use for them.

The basic Infantry Div can be easily destroyed by Mobile Artillery. This should be a very attack-oriented game.

Armored Bde stats seem fine. Even if an Infantry Div has a D terrain bonus of 100%, the tanks still have a good chance of destroying them.

Heavy Armored Rgt stats don't seem to have enough of a difference from an Armored Bde. Their stats only give them about a 10% better chance of destroying an Infantry Div on a hill. But then, I didn't see much use for heavy tanks in Appeasement either.

I was under the impression that Italian infantry was inferior to French/British/American Inf.

I don't think air cover will be abused in this game as in Appeasement. Appeasement's Armored Inf. had the Aegis flag, making it a better defender than aircraft or flak. In your scen, it doesn't. Perhaps you could put in a long-range fighter? That unit would be very useful.

Anti-aircraft stats seem fine. 2 or more ground attack units will destroy a single anti-aircraft, but we will probably have more than 1 anti-aircraft unit in cities. This balance should be great- if the attacker is willing, he can sacrifice 1 air unit for each enemy flak unit, and then destroy the rest of the garrison w/no losses, even with the anti-aircraft improvement.

88mm anti-aircraft seems adequately better than its ordinary counterpart to justify a doubled cost.

Corps Artillery will be useful.

Cavalry, paratroopers and the Recon Rgt should all be very useful to be at the head of invasions with the 'ignore zones of control' flag.

Done for now...

[McMonkey]

Excellent feedback guys, just what I was hoping for

Armoured/Infantry: If I change their HP/FP to 3 and increase cost by 10 would they be more worthwhile? I have also been thinking about the effects of rush building on unit choice.

Heavy Armour: Would a increase to HP4 FP5 and +10 cost make them more useful?

Italian Infantry: Most Italian units have slightly inferior stats to represent their inferior equipment. Generally during WWII the Italian Army suffered from inferior equipment, poor leadership and a lack of motivation. This was not the fault of the Italian soldier who had fought hard during WWI. Some Italian divisions, such as the Bologna Infantry Division, gave a good account of themselves. In the scenario the player will be in control and should have an opportunity to lead the Italian forces in his own way.

Long range fighter: I will consider a way of including such a unit, especially for the allies.

Bomber: I will look at increasing the HP/FP of all bomber types by 1 and see how that works out.

Missile range: The missile can be countered quite effectively by AA Regiments in large numbers especially in conjunction with AA Defences (SAM). I will do some more testing. I am not keen on giving them multiple turn range!

Maritime Bomber: I will look at increasing the range to 30 so make them a better option than the Destroyer for ASW. They are also effective against Cruisers and can cause damage to Battleships. More testing needed. They cannot attack land targets and will be the only Bomber type aircraft allowed on carriers.

Agent: Good idea to make the Agent an allied only unit. All other nations have the Recon Regiment for battlefield intelligence. I may abandon the Diplomat idea completely. I get your idea about the SOE and think I will produce Allied controlled Partisans in Europe triggered when certain cities are captured. Again some more consideration is needed.

I will test out these new stats myself but your points of view would be appreciated!

[Eurisko]

Heavy armor: Did some tests, the odds of beating a fortified non-infantry veteran unit without terrain defense bonus seems to be 50/50, so I'd say they could need some beefing up to be more valuable.

Armoured infantry: Seem to have about the same odds as heavy armour. To be honest, I think armoured infantry should be similar to normal infantry but more mobile. I'd take away the alpine flag from normal infantry units (except for the Finnish infantry) to make them more worthwhile.

Missiles: Later on in the war the Brits developed a "gun belt" with advanced radars which helped greatly against the V1 threat.

From Wikipedia:

"In mid-1944 the V-1 threat was drastically reduced by the arrival of two electronic aids for anti-aircraft guns requested by AA Command, both developed in the USA by the MIT Rad Lab after the British John Randall and Harry Boot had invented the cavity magnetron and provided it to them free of charge: radar-based automatic gunlaying (using the SCR-584 and other radars), and the proximity fuze.

These electronic aids arrived in quantity from June 1944, just as the guns reached their firing positions on the coast. Seventeen percent of all flying bombs entering the coastal 'gun belt' were destroyed by guns in their first week on the coast. This rose to 60% by 23 August and 74% in the last week of the month, when on one day 82% were shot down. The rate improved from one V-1 destroyed for every 2,500 shells fired initially, to one for every 100."

So I have a suggestion: Make the SDI city improvement buildable for the allies. It does not have any effect other than giving units in a city x2 defense against missiles since there are no nukes in this scenario.

Maritime bomber: To be honest, I still think I wouldn't build any. It just doesn't seem to be worth the effort, as destroyers are still more useful as light escorts and less vulnerable than maritime bombers, at less cost. And if the Germans don't decide to focus on submarines or any sort of naval dominance, the point of a maritime bombers is completely lost.

I think what'd be more useful for the Brits would be a ground attack aircraft/maritime bomber hybrid (basically a ground attack aircraft which can spot submarines) such as the Mosquito. It would be much more feasible to build those, since their usefulness would not depend on whether or not Germany feels like building submarines.

It could keep the current stats, and beefing up the maritime bomber would just further discourage Germany from seeking naval dominance since a cheap throwaway unit could just tear into expensive battleships.

I also think that ground attack bombers should be allowed on carriers.

[McMonkey]

Have beefed up the Heavy Armour to a point where they can usually beat infantry outside of cities. Have started a systematic combat test for all unit types and I am keeping a record of all combat results to allow comparison and assist me in the stat tweaking process. Made Corps Artillery more powerful so they are a better siege weapon.

Armoured/Mobile infantry and Pz-Grenadiers all have HP/FP 3 so I will test how well that works out. What combat advantage would be gained by removing the Alpine flag from Infantry?

Like the SDI idea to counter missiles later on in the war!

I will look at your idea for the Maritime Bomber. I just really wanted to use the beautiful Swordfish unit, but if the game would be better off with another unit type I will make the change.

Will post the results of the combat test when completed to show the pros and cons of each unit type.

I really need to pay more attention to rush building with unit costs as I am sure everyone playing the PBEM will be rush building like crazy.

I was also wondering if I could have a peak at the unit stats from Ostfront as Curtsibling seems to have come up with a good system!

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by McMonkey
Armoured/Mobile infantry and Pz-Grenadiers all have HP/FP 3 so I will test how well that works out. What combat advantage would be gained by removing the Alpine flag from Infantry?

The advantage would not manifest itself in combat. Basically, motorized infantry would be just like normal infantry but twice as fast, making it a good unit to spearhead invasions by land.

I don't know why normal infantry would have the alpine flag anyway. I could understand it for highly mobile special forces or forces who know the territory well, such as airborne troopers, partisans or Finnish infantry, but I don't really see ordinary infantry battalions merrily marching over mountains, hills and through dense forests just as easily as they would over grasslands or paved roads.

Btw, what's up with all the airstacking in Appeasement and Aggression anyway? In almost all of the games I have played in or observed, they are banned by the rules. I certainly hope we won't have any airstacks in this game, it makes open range combat almost impossible and basically only allows a player to attack enemy cities.

Jet fighters should be have more defense, but also be much more expensive to build.

Maybe 10 or 12 defense and a cost of 160 or so?

And ships in general should be more expensive.

Also you'd not be scrapping the concept of a maritime bomber entirely, it would just be a dual purpose unit.

[McMonkey]

Air stacking in the current Appeasement game is rubbish. I wish we had created a rule forbidding it (even though I have been using it heavily!)

I need to work out the stats to make air stacking possible but not invincible. I have just done a little test and found that fighters will attack fighters unless there is an AA unit in the stack. With the normal AA unit one or two of your own fighters can kill it. With an 88mm it is nearly impossible. My solution is to give the normal armoured units the ability to attack aircraft. This will solve the invincible stack problem and make the armoured units useful even when the more potent heavy armour is available. I can justify this by saying that armoured divisions would be accompanied by self-propelled AA units. This way air stacks with 88mm Flak will be possible providing the enemy doesn't have any armour in the area, therefore representing air cover. What do you think?

Most infantry have a movement rate of 2 (except more mobile American and British units with 3) which gives them a move rate of 6. Motorized units have a move rate of 4 meaning they move 12 along roads, double infantry. I want the infantry to have the alpine flag to represent their ability to operate in rough terrain where mechanized units cannot easily go. Keep up the argument and I may change my mind though

Agreed about ships and Jet Fighters, will make some alterations.

[Eurisko]

Why allow airstacks at all? I don't see the point.

If it is just to emulate an "air cover" effect, it really isn't worth the trade-off in terms of how boring battles become.

Also, you do have a point with the infantry alpine flag.

[Elensar]

If this is primarily for multiplayer, why not have a "cannot enter 'rough' terrain (defined)" for units so limited house rule?

One could even, if using ToT, use the impassable terrain flag, but that seems too harsh.

As for motorized infantry being any better in combat, I can imagine it being justified to give a slight offensive boost relative to normal infantry, unit stats permiting such a tweak. (If regular is 4, 5 is too high, but if regular is 10, 11 might work)

Just a couple suggestions.

[McMonkey]

@Eurisko
I want all aircraft to have at least a range of 2. This will give the opposition a chance to fight back and represent dogfights. I am not keen on introducing too many house rules, especially one forbidding air stacks as it would be a pain to implement. In an ideal world fighters would attack fighters no matter what unit was stacked underneath. As that is not possible without giving AA units such low stats as to make them useless I think the Armoured/AA solution makes sense. As long as players have some armoured divisions the air stacks will not be effective. If the player has no armoured divisions they deserve to be thwarted Also this way both armoured and heavy armoured units will have a role which was one of my aims. (EDIT: See post below!)

@Elensar
Armoured Infantry are A34 D14 but fast moving, normal Infantry are A30 D18 and good in rough terrain. Hopefully this will make both units worth building.

All this feedback is really helping me iron out the stats. Keep it coming

EDIT: Here are some of the combat results so far. If it says WIN the following colour is how much health the attacking unit had left, if LOST the colour signifies the amount of health the surviving defender had left.

NON VET US INF
--------------
INF OPEN UNFORT - WIN GREEN/WIN RED/WIN YELLOW
INF OPEN FORT - WIN GREEN/LOST RED/LOST GREEN
INF HILL UNFORT - LOST RED/LOST GREEN/WIN YELLOW
INF HILL FORT - LOST YELLOW/LOST RED/LOST YELLOW
INF CITY w/AA - LOST GREEN/LOST GREEN/LOST GREEN
INF CITY wo/AA - LOST RED/LOST YELLOW/LOST YELLOW

NON VET MOT INF
---------------
INF OPEN UNFORT - WIN YELLOW/WIN YELLOW/WIN YELLOW
INF OPEN FORT - LOST RED/WIN YELLOW VET/WIN RED VET
INF HILL UNFORT - LOST GREEN/LOST RED/WIN YELLOW
INF HILL FORT - LOST YELLOW/LOST GREEN/LOST RED
INF CITY w/AA - LOST GREEN/LOST GREEN/LOST YELLOW
INF CITY wo/AA - LOST YELLOW/LOST GREEN/LOST GREEN

NON VET ARMD INF
----------------
INF OPEN UNFORT - WIN GREEN/WIN GREEN/WIN RED VET
INF OPEN FORT - LOST RED/WIN YELLOW/WIN YELLOW VET
INF HILL UNFORT - LOST GREEN/WIN YELLOW/LOST RED
INF HILL FORT - LOST YELLOW/LOST YELLOW/WIN YELLOW
INF CITY w/AA - LOST GREEN/LOST GREEN/LOST RED
INF CITY wo/AA - LOST RED/LOST YELLOW/LOST GREEN

NON VET CORPS ARTY (INCREASE POWER!)
------------------
INF OPEN UNFORT - WIN YELLOW/WIN YELLOW VET/WIN YELLOW VET
INF OPEN FORT - WIN YELLOW/WIN GREEN VET/WIN YELLOW
INF HILL UNFORT - LOST RED/WIN YELLOW VET/LOST NILRED
INF HILL FORT - LOST YELLOW/LOST YELLOW/LOST GREEN
INF CITY w/AA - LOST GREEN/WIN YELLOW/LOST YELLOW
INF CITY wo/AA - LOST RED/LOST NILRED/LOST RED

W/IMPROVED STATS:
INF HILL UNFORT - LOST RED/WIN RED VET/WIN GREEN VET
INF HILL FORT - LOST NILRED/LOST RED/WIN RED VET
INF CITY w/AA - WIN YELLOW VET/LOST RED/LOST RED
INF CITY wo/AA - WIN YELLOW/LOST RED/WIN RED VET

NON VET BOMBER
--------------
INF OPEN UNFORT - WIN GREEN/WIN GREEN/WIN GREEN VET
INF OPEN FORT - WIN GREEN/WIN GREEN/WIN GREEN VET
INF HILL UNFORT - WIN GREEN VET/WIN GREEN/WIN GREEN
INF HILL FORT - WIN RED VET/WIN YELLOW/WIN GREEN VET
INF CITY w/AA - LOST RED/LOST RED/LOST YELLOW
INF CITY wo/AA - WIN YELLOW VET/WIN YELLOW/WIN RED VET

NON VET HEAVY ARMOUR
--------------------
INF OPEN UNFORT - WIN YELLOW VET/WIN GREEN VET/WINN GREEN
INF OPEN FORT - WIN GREEN VET/WIN GREEN/WIN YELLOW
INF HILL UNFORT - WIN RED VET/WIN RED VET/WIN GREEN VET
INF HILL FORT - WIN RED/WIN NILRED/WIN RED VET
INF CITY w/AA - LOST RED/LOST RED/LOST YELLOW
INF CITY wo/AA - LOST YELLOW/LOST GREEN/LOST GREEN

NON VET MOBILE ARTILLERY
------------------------
INF OPEN UNFORT - WIN YELLOW/WIN GREEN/WIN YELLOW
INF OPEN FORT - WIN YELLOW/WIN YELLOW/WIN YELLOW VET
INF HILL UNFORT - WIN YELLOW VET/WIN YELLOW/WIN YELLOW VET
INF HILL FORT - LOST YELLOW/WIN YELLOW VET/LOST GREEN
INF CITY w/AA - LOST RED/WIN RED VET/LOST RED
INF CITY wo/AA - LOST YELLOW/LOST YELLOW/LOST YELLOW

NON VET GROUND ATTACK
---------------------
INF OPEN UNFORT - WIN GREEN/WIN GREEN/WIN GREEN
INF OPEN FORT - WIN GREEN/WIN GREEN VET/WIN GREEN VET
INF HILL UNFORT - WIN GREEN VET/WIN YELLOW VET/WIN GREEN
INF HILL FORT - WIN RED/WIN GREEN/LOST YELLOW
INF CITY w/AA - LOST YELLOW/WIN YELLOW VET/LOST YELLOW
INF CITY wo/AA - WIN RED VET/WIN RED/LOST YELLOW

[McMonkey]

Just been testing my stupid Armoured/AA theory and found it does not work as intended. The only solutions I can see are to give all units the ability to attack aircraft which seems a bit too unrealistic and would render fighters useless, the other option is to introduce a house rule. As much as I hate to do it, the house rule seems like the best option unless someone can come up with a clever solution.

I can just picture the scene now. You are near the end of a long multiplayer turn but have forgotten to make regular saves. One of your units is sent to the wrong square by a erroneous slip of the mouse and you have created an illegal air stack I suppose the cheat menu can be used to fix this if it does occur. I just wish there was an in game remedy!