Peace in our times

[Eurisko]

On the other hand, you have painfully boring wars where de facto invincible stacks of units slowly crawl towards their target under air cover.

I don't see what's so hard to implement about this. House rules cannot be physically enforced but depend on trusting people.

Any "missteps" can easily be fixed with the cheat menu when playing in .hot mode, so that should not be a problem.

Btw, I don't really like the idea of any ground units, including the flak, being able to attack planes to begin with.

The AEGIS flag by itself without the fighter flag simulates the anti-aircraft capabilities of flaks just well.

During bombing runs, aircraft run into flak fire and take losses from it (AEGIS defense bonus of flaks). However, flaks being able to "go after aircraft" (ie actively attack them) after the bombing run has ended (after the bomber has attacked this turn and has no more moves left) seems ridiculous. Only fighters should be able to give chase to retreating bombers and intercept them on their return, as flaks are much too immobile to do anything but sit there and shoot at incoming planes.

Giving all units the fighter flag was what Pap did in his 2194 scenario, together with the house rule that only fighters may shoot down other aircraft, but that created a host of other problems, such as players not knowing whether any ground units were left in a stack with an aircraft on top of it, inadvertently downing aircraft with ground units etc.

So I'd say the best solution is banning air stacks and only giving fighters the fighter flag.

[McMonkey]

Agreed on all points. Only fighters will have the fighter ability and air stacks will be forbidden via a house rule. Thanks for arguing the point with me, it got through in the end

In the latest Appeasement game I have managed to destroy Germany using air stacks but I think it would have been a much better game if it had been forbidden from the start. Since I attacked into Germany I have been able to put up an almost impenetrable wall to prevent any German retaliation. Ironically I had not thought about using the tactic until Germany used it against Britain and Jerec advised me to follow suit, so I don't feel too guilty

I want the game to be offensively natured, this is WWII after all and not a WWI style slog. I think the stats are getting there but a little more testing is required.

[Elensar]

Why make mechanized into "better in some ways, weaker than others"? If it was possible to afford (or in Civ terms, build) completely mechanized infantry (as opposed to unmechanized), everyone in the real situation would have done it.

Perhaps have a (cue a chorus of groans) rule that you can only have one mechanized division for every X regular divisions, with X being roughly based on historical ratios and gameplay. Tank divisions would be seperate (and heavy vs. regular would also have some such ratio).

Or perhaps "1 for every X shields produced"

As to heavy versus regular tanks...I suppose the question is...why would anyone (in the real war) want to use medium or light tanks instead of heavy tanks?

Making it so that all units that can be built are valid (due to combat strengths and weaknesses) sounds reasonable, but there's no reason to use a given model of tank once one can replace it with a model that is faster/better armored/has more firepower/has better mobility or whatever. Why this shouldn't be true in game, I don't get.

Admitedly, I've never been bothered by house rules...Civ's limtiations as a game prevent some things that would otherwise work nicely (For instance, in Call to Power, it is probable the mechanized infantry and heavy tanks would cost more to support...in Civ, a unit is a unit.) from being executed, so having "yes, it is technically possible, but don't do this" for some things is a fair enough patch.

Do those more used to multiplayer scenarios have thoughts on this?

[McMonkey]

The reason I want Medium and Heavy tanks to both be useful is they were both useful in WWII! For example the KV-1 heavy was great for breaking through an enemy front line while the T-34 was perfect for exploiting the breakthrough. The British employed both Infantry and Cruiser tanks, the Americans had the Stuart and Sherman and later Pershing types. Germany had the Pz-IV and Tiger and so on. In the latest game of appeasement I found the T-34 to be a very flexible unit with its extra movement. I may make the Medium tanks even more mobile so the player can choose between mobility or firepower.

Mechanized infantry did not have the same staying power as regular footsloggers who could dig in unhindered by their transport. Mobile infantry's advantage is their mobility and ability to keep up with and support the armoured units. I have given British and American infantry increased movement (+1) to represent their superior organic transport capability over German, Russian or Italian units. This is not 100% accurate but seems like a good compromise for gameplay purposes.

Your ideas about ratios make a lot of sense but would just bee to complicated to keep track of. Its a shame there is not a way to make certain units more expensive to maintain but you work with what you have got.

One of the reasons I want to avoid too many house rules for units is that there will be quite a lot of diplomatic house rules for the player to consider and I don't want to make the game overly complex when I can avoid it. Sometimes players are pushed for time and having to wade through loads of rules would be prohibitive.

[Elensar]

Infantry is infantry. Whether a given (lets say German) division was mechanized infantry or not doesn't alter its ability to dig foxholes and trenches.

One has to guard one's logistical setup whether its run on gasoline or oats, after all.

So what am I overlooking?

As to the general +1 movement, that works. Means that once the two countries are present in force (either to defend or liberate the continent), life is going to be 'interesting" for the Germans. As it should be.

As to Medium tanks versus Heavy tanks...well then. Good. : ) Mobility versus firepower is a very good tradeoff, just as long as it isn't artificial. That was the bit that was bugging me, making an artifical weakness. If they're two different styles (instead of one being an upgraded form of another, in effect), then lovely. I was missing something...thought heavy was sort of like "elite", and forgetting about heavy as a different tactical niche.

If ratios are too much trouble (and I think you're right, after a while you'd forget about them.), this might work:

"No more than one mechanized division may be supported per city".

That is, you can't have two mechanized divisions drawing support from say, Berlin.


My nitpicks aside, this sounds like there's some very good stuff here.

I swear, why the Civ community can generate such wonderful scenarios and the standard game comes with scenarios that are so "Meh." is a mystery.

Its not just Civ, either. But that's a seperate discussion.

Keep up the good work!

[McMonkey]

You are right about Infantry being Infantry but I still want to differentiate units to make each type worth producing. I guess that is the line where gameplay and historical accuracy have to be blurred

I have sorted out the tech rates for all nations and they are very well balanced. Trade will play a big part in the game, both for generating cash and for developing technologies, so the tech paradigm is set high (120/10) so that with a science rate of 80% most nations will develop a tech every 12 turns.

Unit graphics and stats are nearing completion and the only major element that is left is the events. If anyone would like to submit a suggestion feel free. Should be lots of space as I am not propping up the AI!

Oh, and heres a map made using CivDiplomacy:

[Eurisko]

Wow, you're almost done already?

Hmm, I'll be gone from August 10 until early September, I hope I can participate in the playtest.

Maybe I could somehow manage to play and post turns infrequently.

Btw, a question about the graphics: Why don't you use country-specific or other unit shields?

[Eurisko]

A few other things:

I think that freight ships have way too many movement points right now.

The US can cross the Atlantic in a single turn, and the Germans could invade Scotland from the Netherlands in a single turn as well, making the capture of Norway less important (despite the wonder) strategically than it really was. And they can easily land near south Britain without ever invading the low countries or France as well.

It also makes the British naval wonders less lucrative to the Italians and Spaniards.

I think the previous movement points (12) for freighters worked just fine, making the Americans remote enough and forcing the Germans to invade various countries to get back at Britain.

Btw, why is there Swedish Iron Ore in Bergen?

And don't forget to hex-edit the .scn file to avoid the first turn money bug and maybe lift the 30k maximum gold cap.

Also, ocean terrain should be stackable as well, else any invasion fleet coming from the US would be a suicide mission if the German player can scout properly in the Atlantic, with very little firepower needed to sink the fleet.

[McMonkey]

Probably got a few weeks of work left to get everything squared away. I am willing to wait for you until September, especially as you have had such a big part in the design!

Shields: I may add some kind of shields if I have time, though they will not be nation specific. Perhaps I will use military symbols IE XX for Divisions III for regiments and so on.

Ship movement: You are right. I will revert back to the original stats!

Swedish Iron Ore: I placed this wonder in Bergen (unfortunately Narvik is ff the map) as one of of the main purposes of the British intervention was to halt the important shipments of Iron Ore from the Swedish Arctic mines, via Narvik, to Germany. Likewise, Germany invaded Norway to protect these supplies as well as for the strategic advantages.

Stackable Ocean:
I may need some convincing over this. I don't like the way the cargo of sunk transports is left floating, even though they can be disbanded. Also with stackable oceans players can simply move a huge stack around protected by multiple Battleships.

If ocean is non-stackable then players will need to use Destroyers and Maritime Bombers to search out and destroy enemy subs. Convoys can be stacked under Battleships and Cruisers and should be fairly safe as long as not too many U-Boats slip through the cordon of escorts.

The combined Fleets of Britain, France and America have a huge advantage over Germany. I intend to create an event that will spawn Submarines for Germany in the French Atlantic coast cities once they are captured. This will give Germany an opportunity to fight the battle of the Atlantic. The capture of Malta and Gibraltar would give the Axis U-Boats a much better chance of sneaking past the escorts and having a pop at the convoys!

PS: My original answer was longer but I lost it and had to re-type it all

[techumseh]

Stick to your guns on stackable ocean terrain. It just doesn't work.

[Elensar]

Well, if mechanized infantry is very expensive (relative to regular infantry), that would be one way to discourage making too many units of it.

Of course, that might lead to "small, but highly elite" versus "mid size to large and average"...which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Either way, as long as mechanized infantry doesn't become kind of pointless to have (as opposed to more tanks), it works.

Stackable ocean...

The problem with nonstackable:

Lets say I have four capital ships, three destroyers, and a couple other ships in a given square.

You only have to destroy one unit in order for all of them to be "sunk". This seems excessive.

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by Elensar
Well, if mechanized infantry is very expensive (relative to regular infantry), that would be one way to discourage making too many units of it.

Of course, that might lead to "small, but highly elite" versus "mid size to large and average"...which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Either way, as long as mechanized infantry doesn't become kind of pointless to have (as opposed to more tanks), it works.

Stackable ocean...

The problem with nonstackable:

Lets say I have four capital ships, three destroyers, and a couple other ships in a given square.

You only have to destroy one unit in order for all of them to be "sunk". This seems excessive.

I agree with all points made.

Ships are much too weak right now as well, combined with non-stackable ocean any attempt at sending troops over sea becomes hopeless.

I did a few tests, 16 bombers vs 16 battleships, with veterancy etc considered, and bombers managed to destroy battleships 14 times.

Cruisers fared better in a similar test, with only 4 Bombers being successful at destroying one, but all that survived were heavily damaged to the point where they'd be sitting ducks for the next wave of bombers which would take them out.

To be honest, I think all ships except for submarines should be given the AEGIS flag, and ship stats should be changed with only ship-to-ship combat in mind.

As it is there's no need to build submarines. Too risky, as they need to travel through patrolled seas and can easily be sunk by any ship or plane nearby. A bomber can, with its huge range, just circumnavigate any potential points of high scouting activity and lethally strike any fleet from far away.

Bombing of ships with high altitude bombers was attempted by the US but failed miserably anyway. The battle of Midway and the attack on the Ryujo, in which B-17s missed a large, almost immobile aircraft carrier by wide margins, made it obvious that it just didn't work.

So basically bombers should be worthless against ships.

[McMonkey]

@Elensar
The idea is that stacking ships should not be a safe option, other than for protecting convoys. Ships should be spread out into a formation with Cruisers and Battleships protecting convoys, Destroyers further out sweeping for submarines and aircraft scouting even further ahead to locate enemy ships.

@Eurisko
I have not run any tests on ships yet so I will probably implement your suggestion for higher defensive stats. I don't want Battleships to be too powerful in the coastal bombardment role but I want ships to be worth building. Will do some testing today and see what I can come up with!

[AGRICOLA]

Originally posted by McMonkey
PS: My original answer was longer but I lost it and had to re-type it all

Sounds like me a few years ago until I discovered that moving to the top of what one is writing, using EDIT + SELECT ALL + COPY every so often is a good way of ensuring that one does not have to retype exerything.

[Elensar]

What's wrong with stacking ships? Gameplaywise, that is.

The ocean is too small for wide fleets to be as "still small in the vast sea" as historically. (No fault of the mapmaker)