RE: patch update

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: patch update

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> RE: patch update

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: patch update - 1/30/2008 8:55:20 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

Alternate idea.
Attacker gets CAM when
1 The attacker has the full spectrum and the defender does not.
If the defender does have the full spectrum, then attacker gets CAM when...
2. Attacking force has a greater sum of armor and TB's than the defender.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

But I would even support 4+d4 and 9+d4 if others felt it needed it.

Are there any that would second that either of these two topics be moved from the "unlikely due to lack of unanimity" category to the "will do" category?

I find both ideas easy to understand and believe they are simple to be implemented. Both seem not to have any disadvantages.

Any opposite views?

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 91

RE: patch update - 2/1/2008 7:07:56 AM

christian brown

Posts: 1441
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline

It is a pity this was not thought out before. A combined fleet AA defense modifier seems like a great idea, it may even make BBs worthwhile apart from shore bombardment for a change. This does not cancel my agreement with the other proposed change regarding unique targeting for CAGs...............

Hate to spew, but while we're at it (CAM and so on.)

Why not include a simple rule giving whoever has an air unit other than a fighter a +1 to defense/offense in the region where combat occurs? If both sides possess an air unit, the modifier would be negated. No one can doubt the huge advantage the side with air cover had across the scope of WWII when the opponent lacked a present air force. This would again encourage the construction of TA. Just a thought.

_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 92

RE: patch update - 2/1/2008 9:09:34 PM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: christian brown

Why not include a simple rule giving whoever has an air unit other than a fighter a +1 to defense/offense in the region where combat occurs? If both sides possess an air unit, the modifier would be negated. No one can doubt the huge advantage the side with air cover had across the scope of WWII when the opponent lacked a present air force. This would again encourage the construction of TA. Just a thought.

Sounds reasonable, but such a bonus should be capped at +3 or so.

(in reply to christian brown)

Post #: 93

RE: patch update - 2/3/2008 10:15:11 PM

goodtimes

Posts: 9
Joined: 6/10/2007
Status: offline

Re: stacking limits on Islands (as discussed earlier this thread)

Instead of stacking limits, maybe there could be stacking limit penalties. (Units of an overstacked Island could suffer combat modifiers, be 'unsupplyed' etc.). A true limit could be set on supplies, where at the end of the movement phase, any supplies over the island limit would be destroyed.

If you want different Islands to have different capacities, you could use the current graphical depiction of Islands:
              Large, single island graphic - no limit
              Small, single island graphic  - 20 points
              Small, double/triple Island - 30 points
              Multiple Island graphic        - 40 points
              Port                                - +20 points


Re: A different kind of Stacking Limit...

If some players find the size of stacks in general too large or ahistorical, maybe a future version could have stacking penalties based on the amount of your forces commited to an attack or defence.
   example: if you commit more than 1/3 of your total (l/a/s) forces to an attack - small penalty
                                   more than 1/2                                                       - larger penalty
If defensive stacks are too large or ahistorical something similar could apply (although defensive force strength can't be checked by the combat analyzer the way attacking forces can)
                             say, more than 1/2                                                       - small penalty
                                    more than 2/3                                                       - larger penalty
(a minimum number-of-total-units threshold would need to be met before applying)

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 94

RE: patch update - 2/4/2008 12:14:45 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

I'm trying my best to balance what I think folks want :).

This is already more protracted than I had hoped. I had wanted to be done a month ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
Alternate idea.
Attacker gets CAM when
1 The attacker has the full spectrum and the defender does not.
If the defender does have the full spectrum, then attacker gets CAM when...
2. Attacking force has a greater sum of armor and TB's than the defender.

My issue with this rule is ... well, I don't actually care all that much. I prefer it as is because it is simpler.

The real issue with this rule is that I really cannot tell what people want. Recall when I said I didn't understand which way the rule was intended?

Option 1: make CAM easier to attain (as described above, because now TB can fill in for armor count).
Option 2: make CAM harder to attain (a different rule, where we say that in addition to satisfying the "full spectrum" and the "superior armor" requirements, the attacker must satisfy a new "superior TB" requirement.

I oppose option 2. I don't care too strongly about option 1, but I don't like it. What is the real value it adds? I'd suggest that the WA would end up buying more TB and less armor (the TB are useful earlier), contrary to the original intent of the armor rule. I think we'd be back to the WA buying exactly 1 armor to use in the European theater.

More to the point, now Jesse supports making CAM easier to obtain with TB, but earlier someone else was expressed for the opposite option making CAM harder to get if the defender has TB. Which is it? It begins to feel like monkeying with the rules for no good reason.

If the CAM rule is not forcing enough diversity in unit builds then let's come up with one generic rule that can be applied to all units and be done with it. No more special cases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
So lets see, it looks like we have a synergy of 3 ideas that may go together very well.
1. Unique targeting of naval units by air.
2. Eliminate trannies as a CAG choice unless they are the only ships present.
3. Improve fleet AA as described above.

How about this. It will be easier to code, and is largely the same.
1. Unique targeting of naval (non-transport) units by CAG.
2. Once all naval (no-transport) units are covered by CAGs, independent selection using the normal (weighted) CAG probabilities.

Transports would be possible after all naval vessels are chosen, but unlikely with the target weighting. If you have more CAGs than naval targets, you'll almost certainly be doubling on CVs.

As for improving fleet AA, I would like it to be consistent and minimize change. The first thing is to simply increase AA capability (Glory does this with a research bump in AA for HFs, maybe it could be larger). Hitting AA=4 for fleets is a big difference from AA=3. For consistency, the best thing would seem to be that if the number of naval vessels is more than twice the number of attacking air, the AA gets a bonus like land flak does in the same condition. IMO, this would be a huge change making land based air a lot less effective in places like the Med, where I usually see just a couple of air units supporting the navies.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 95

RE: patch update - 2/4/2008 12:17:01 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: christian brown
Why not include a simple rule giving whoever has an air unit other than a fighter a +1 to defense/offense in the region where combat occurs? If both sides possess an air unit, the modifier would be negated. No one can doubt the huge advantage the side with air cover had across the scope of WWII when the opponent lacked a present air force. This would again encourage the construction of TA. Just a thought.

IMO, the creeping-play-complexity to realism-enhancement ratio does not warrant the change.

(in reply to christian brown)

Post #: 96

RE: patch update - 2/4/2008 12:30:09 AM

MrQuiet

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

My issue with this rule is ... well, I don't actually care all that much. I prefer it as is because it is simpler.

The real issue with this rule is that I really cannot tell what people want. Recall when I said I didn't understand which way the rule was intended?

If you are looking for oppinion on this I will offer mine.
Personaly I like it the way it is and I dont think I would change it except to maybe remove HB from the CAM qualifying air arm.
I would aslo consider removing the +3 (+6 after doubling) CAM Bonus from Artillary fire which would reduce the Russian incentive to go all out on Art.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 97

RE: patch update - 2/4/2008 12:56:12 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet

quote:

My issue with this rule is ... well, I don't actually care all that much. I prefer it as is because it is simpler.

The real issue with this rule is that I really cannot tell what people want. Recall when I said I didn't understand which way the rule was intended?

If you are looking for oppinion on this I will offer mine.
Personaly I like it the way it is and I dont think I would change it except to maybe remove HB from the CAM qualifying air arm.
I would aslo consider removing the +3 (+6 after doubling) CAM Bonus from Artillary fire which would reduce the Russian incentive to go all out on Art.

I can remove HB, no objection and almost everyone wants it.

I'm not going to change TB unless it were part of some comprehensive change that makes global sense, somehow consistent or nearly consistent across units. CAM works pretty well, the last thing I want is tweaks that feel tweaky and make it more confusing.

I actually like Marshall Art's (do I credit this correctly?) idea that you get CA "points" depending on how many unit-class "teams" you have. IMO, TB needs more weight than other units. So I end up with something like this:

every arm/inf/art/TB "full team" you have, each member team gets the CAM.
for each arm/inf/art "partial team" you have, not to exceed the number of TB, each member gets the CAM (this gives the overweight of TB, which basically gets to contribute to 2 teams instead of 1).
In addition, each such (full or partial) team could provide one other range 1 unit (outside of a team, and note that range 1 excludes art) a CA benefit.

For example, with 4arm+10inf+8art+2TB, you'd get 2 full teams, and 2 partial teams. These 4 teams provide 4 extra CA units (in this case, infantry units not in a "team"), so that in total you'd have 18 units firing with CA (4 arm + 8 inf + 4 art + 2 TB).

This is a little more complex, but it's still fairly straightforward (the combat pop-up would display "number of CA teams" instead of the current "Attacker has CA"). And all CA benefits are simply proportional to how much balance you have.

I think I prefer either leaving it alone entirely, or going to something like the above.

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 2/4/2008 1:18:00 AM >

(in reply to MrQuiet)

Post #: 98

RE: patch update - 2/4/2008 5:57:13 AM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I actually like Marshall Art's (do I credit this correctly?) idea that you get CA "points" depending on how many unit-class "teams" you have. IMO, TB needs more weight than other units. So I end up with something like this:
every arm/inf/art/TB "full team" you have, each member team gets the CAM.

for each arm/inf/art "partial team" you have, not to exceed the number of TB, each member gets the CAM (this gives the overweight of TB, which basically gets to contribute to 2 teams instead of 1).

In addition, each such (full or partial) team could provide one other range 1 unit (outside of a team, and note that range 1 excludes art) a CA benefit.

No objections from my perspective.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 99

RE: patch update - 2/4/2008 6:04:01 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKar
I'm not really convinced of removing the CAG double team of CVs either. What's the reasoning behind it? Making CVs less likely to be sunk?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKar
I see. Sounds like a reasonable change then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
I certainly appreciate folks intent here; the carrier war in AWD does tend to be a war of big stacks. But if you think about it, so does the ground war and the air war ... its generally suicide to disperse your forces in anything approximating their historical deployments. The air war in Western Europe usually sees one big stack of WA aircraft facing one big stack of German aircraft; the land war in Russia sees 1-3 big stacks of ground units on each side warily stalking one another.

I still respectfully submit that the CAG double team realistically reflects the tactical imperative of the day; CVs were the queens of the sea and opposing carrier pilots pursued them to the exclusion of all other targets. The mechanics proposed in this thread suggest that the proper defense of your carriers is to surround them with lots of other targets so that the enemy CAGs get distracted and bomb something else.

Looking to convince hold outs :).

GKar seems OK.

I think that one of the main points was made by Uncle Joe long ago was that this is not a tactical game. True, tactically air may completely prioritize CVs. But what does combat represent in a 3 month IGOUGO turn structure? At sea, with these huge sea zones, there is much more of an impact from luck. Which ships happen to be spotted when. Whether planes happen to be refueling at an inopportune time. Etc.

If you have complete air superiority, you could still phase your CAG attacks so each one targets a CV. If not, you may consider that some are sinking straggling non-CV fleets when the rest of the fleet has succesfully fled over the horizon.

I think that the bottom line is the playability. Yes, even with the great supply innovations of this game stacks still dominate. But in this case a mechanic exists that makes the stack, and non-diverse unit compositions, extremely and overly important.

IMO, the Pacific war will be greatly improved by this. Its a small tweak, not a major overhaul.

As an aside, the Pacific would also be greatly improved with a new map. One of the big issues is that it is just to far from the SW USA to Australia, proportionally farther than real life. The adoption of a consistent hex lattice (using staggered rectangular regions) through the whole Pacific would be a huge improvement, making the SW USA to Australia much closer, changing the current 10 sea zones to 7 or 8 zones. This is the only map mod I would be particularly eager to see (for all oceans; I hate inconsistency, and I'm not fond of the partial staggering applied to only the western Pacific).

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 2/4/2008 6:05:02 AM >

(in reply to GKar)

Post #: 100

RE: patch update - 2/4/2008 6:10:26 AM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

As for improving fleet AA, I would like it to be consistent and minimize change. The first thing is to simply increase AA capability (Glory does this with a research bump in AA for HFs, maybe it could be larger). Hitting AA=4 for fleets is a big difference from AA=3. For consistency, the best thing would seem to be that if the number of naval vessels is more than twice the number of attacking air, the AA gets a bonus like land flak does in the same condition. IMO, this would be a huge change making land based air a lot less effective in places like the Med, where I usually see just a couple of air units supporting the navies.

I would not propose this; as you note it would give a huge and unwarranted boost to all ship AA. What I did have in mind was to treat upgraded vessels like land-based AA. During the war there was a quantum shift in AA firepower that's not well represented by a 1 point increase in the combat rating; this allowed mid/late war vessels to function as dedicated AA platforms.

quote:

How about this. It will be easier to code, and is largely the same.
1. Unique targeting of naval (non-transport) units by CAG.
2. Once all naval (no-transport) units are covered by CAGs, independent selection using the normal (weighted) CAG probabilities.

This seems a reasonable compromise. Two questions; in step one does the unique targeting still give priority to CVs? And, what about non-CAG targeting?

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 101

RE: patch update - 2/4/2008 6:32:24 AM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet (from the Lightning Tourney thread)

I believe victory (for scoring purposes) is actually checked on the start of the German Turn ...

I believe you're right; that does appear to be what happens. But that doesn't match the game manual's description; I believe this is either a bug or some errata needs to be added to the patch release to to correct these rule sections:

quote:

Section 13.1.1 German Surrender:

For Germany to surrender either of the following conditions must be met at the end of any player's turn:

Section 13.1.2 Japanese Surrender:

For Japan to surrender at the end of any player's turn ...

... both of which seem to indicate that Axis surrenders will take place at the end of Allied player turns. and ...

quote:

Section 14.3 End Game Victory Conditions:

Decisive Allied Victory - Axis surrender by the end of the Summer 1945 turn.

... which seems to indicate that victory level is determined by the turn in which the final Axis power surrender takes place.

I don't have a preference; would just like the rule as written to match the rule as coded.

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 102

RE: patch update - 2/4/2008 7:17:45 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

quote:

As for improving fleet AA, I would like it to be consistent and minimize change. The first thing is to simply increase AA capability (Glory does this with a research bump in AA for HFs, maybe it could be larger). Hitting AA=4 for fleets is a big difference from AA=3. For consistency, the best thing would seem to be that if the number of naval vessels is more than twice the number of attacking air, the AA gets a bonus like land flak does in the same condition. IMO, this would be a huge change making land based air a lot less effective in places like the Med, where I usually see just a couple of air units supporting the navies.

I would not propose this; as you note it would give a huge and unwarranted boost to all ship AA. What I did have in mind was to treat upgraded vessels like land-based AA. During the war there was a quantum shift in AA firepower that's not well represented by a 1 point increase in the combat rating; this allowed mid/late war vessels to function as dedicated AA platforms.

I don't like it either ... I'm really just trying to say that if anything is done it should leverage existing rules for consistency and ease of understanding.

No way I'm going to reflect "upgrades". That is confusing, there is no GUI to indicate it.

IMO, there is a big difference between AA=3,4,5. Beyond 5 there is no big difference. In GG, all powers get a little tech push on the way from 3 to 4, and I reduced the world standard so it is cheap to continue. IMO, that captures the effect. It just takes a player that is interested in pursuing it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

quote:

How about this. It will be easier to code, and is largely the same.
1. Unique targeting of naval (non-transport) units by CAG.
2. Once all naval (no-transport) units are covered by CAGs, independent selection using the normal (weighted) CAG probabilities.

This seems a reasonable compromise. Two questions; in step one does the unique targeting still give priority to CVs? And, what about non-CAG targeting?

Answers. Yes, the unique targeting would use the priorities. The non-CAG targeting would be unchanged.

1. Unique targeting of naval (non-transport) units by CAG, with existing weighting towards warships and CVs.
2. Once all naval (no-transport) units are covered by CAGs, independent selection using the normal (weighted) CAG probabilities.

I'd still let CAGs target transports, just not count it towards uniqueness. I.e. the first step doesn't exclude transports, but doesn't punt to the second step until all _warships_ are targeted.

Looking at the implementation, it is a little more difficult than I had thought. So it may evolve a bit.

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 103

RE: patch update - 2/4/2008 7:37:24 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet (from the Lightning Tourney thread)

I believe victory (for scoring purposes) is actually checked on the start of the German Turn ...

I believe you're right; that does appear to be what happens. But that doesn't match the game manual's description; I believe this is either a bug or some errata needs to be added to the patch release to to correct these rule sections:

I don't understand, particularly the comment "for scoring purposes".

I looked through the code. It looks to me like the victory check is at the end of the WA or Sov turn, as described.

It does look, however, like the game will effectively continue to progress to the next turn after the victory is determined. So the next turn has essentially started by the time you get to the victory screen. This may cause some issues. Actually, it also looks like this is a change that I made, in order to make the "continue game" option work correctly (it used to dump you to the victory screen directly and avoid a bunch of code that needed to run for the game to be able to continue). Looking at it now, it looks like a mess to try to fix everything.

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 104

RE: patch update - 2/5/2008 12:15:30 AM

MrQuiet

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

What I meant by 'for scoreing purposes' is that I think it determines axis have surrendered durring the current season but does not calculate the 'score' i.e. victory level until the start of the next season.

This is all just a guess because most games that are not early DV seem to turn out this way.
I certainly may be wrong.
I just figured the person who wrote the manual was not the person who coded the game and they somehow got comunications crossed on when victory level is decided.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 105

RE: patch update - 2/5/2008 1:03:37 AM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

I would simply suggest publishing some errata in the Read Me file that adjusts the wording used in the relevant rules section ... something like:

quote:

14.3 End Game Victory Conditions

For All Campaigns and Scenarios I, II and III
Decisive Allied Victory - Axis surrender during the Spring 1945 turn.
Substantive Allied Victory - Axis surrender during the Summer 1945 turn.
Marginal Allied Victory - Axis surrender during the Fall 1945 turn.
... etc.

(in reply to MrQuiet)

Post #: 106

RE: patch update - 2/5/2008 8:50:46 AM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

I would simply suggest publishing some errata in the Read Me file that adjusts the wording used in the relevant rules section ... something like:

Would that really solve the problem?

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 107

RE: patch update - 2/5/2008 8:51:29 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet
I just figured the person who wrote the manual was not the person who coded the game and they somehow got comunications crossed on when victory level is decided.

No, this is definitely not the case. Having looked at the code, I can say that I unintentionally changed it when I fixed the "continue game" option. My oopsie. First time, I think, that I've had the displeasure of identifying a bug I myself put in a released version :(.

If that is the only problem then that should be easy enough to fix it back. It would still progress to the next season, but I can subtract 1 season in computing the victory level.

(in reply to MrQuiet)

Post #: 108

RE: patch update - 2/5/2008 8:58:34 AM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

If that is the only problem then that should be easy enough to fix it back. It would still progress to the next season, but I can subtract 1 season in computing the victory level.

If and only if the WAllies finish the Axis, right?

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 109

RE: patch update - 2/5/2008 9:01:44 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
"I agree with MA that the current 1+d4 or 6+d4 bumps could use a little extra muscle. However I would prefer more base and not more randomness. So I feel the d4 works well enough. We should start with at least +2 more on the base. 3+d4 and 8+d4 seem like a good starting point. But I would even support 4+d4 and 9+d4 if others felt it needed it.

I don't see a real game problem in need of fixing with the tech events, personally. If there were a lot of support, then I could tweak all of them by adding +1 (better to do a small tweak and see what happens instead of a larger one).

Everything that is 1+d4 would become 2+d4, everything that is 6+d4 would become 7+d4.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 110

RE: patch update - 2/5/2008 9:02:34 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKar

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
If that is the only problem then that should be easy enough to fix it back. It would still progress to the next season, but I can subtract 1 season in computing the victory level.

If and only if the WAllies finish the Axis, right?

Correct. I guess I'll have to pay attention not to introduce another bug here, eh? :)

(in reply to GKar)

Post #: 111

RE: patch update - 2/9/2008 3:28:27 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

1. Unique targeting of naval (non-transport) units by CAG, with existing weighting towards warships and CVs.
2. Once all naval (no-transport) units are covered by CAGs, independent selection using the normal (weighted) CAG probabilities.

I'd still let CAGs target transports, just not count it towards uniqueness. I.e. the first step doesn't exclude transports, but doesn't punt to the second step until all _warships_ are targeted.

Looking at the implementation, it is a little more difficult than I had thought. So it may evolve a bit.

Sounds good. But what would happen if you just changed the transport weight to zero? Would the system still allow CAG to attack transports if they are the only thing left? If your alternate suggestion is difficult to program as you say it might be, then using zero weight for transports may just be the simplest coarse to take. It's also more agreeable with me anyway, since any rule that makes CAG favor warships over transports is a good one. Your alternate suggestion was a bit softer in this regard and allows CAG to sometimes spill over and waste themselves on non-warships. Was that a preference, or was it a matter of programming convenience?

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 112

RE: patch update - 2/9/2008 3:33:00 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

I actually like Marshall Art's (do I credit this correctly?) idea that you get CA "points" depending on how many unit-class "teams" you have. IMO, TB needs more weight than other units. So I end up with something like this:
every arm/inf/art/TB "full team" you have, each member team gets the CAM.

for each arm/inf/art "partial team" you have, not to exceed the number of TB, each member gets the CAM (this gives the overweight of TB, which basically gets to contribute to 2 teams instead of 1).

In addition, each such (full or partial) team could provide one other range 1 unit (outside of a team, and note that range 1 excludes art) a CA benefit.

For example, with 4arm+10inf+8art+2TB, you'd get 2 full teams, and 2 partial teams. These 4 teams provide 4 extra CA units (in this case, infantry units not in a "team"), so that in total you'd have 18 units firing with CA (4 arm + 8 inf + 4 art + 2 TB).

This is a little more complex, but it's still fairly straightforward (the combat pop-up would display "number of CA teams" instead of the current "Attacker has CA"). And all CA benefits are simply proportional to how much balance you have.

I think I prefer either leaving it alone entirely, or going to something like the above.

I really like the unit class teams concept, it helps to encourage proper proportions. If your willing to program this, then by all means do. If I understand you right what you are basically saying is this without the use of full or partial team descriptions.
Number of units getting CA +3
2arm/2inf/2art/1TB
plus an extra
1arm or 1inf/1TB

I think it's a good ratio, but I think it can be simplified further. Instead of using a second rule to add further range 1 units to the mix, this below is pretty much the same thing.
2arm/4inf/2art/1TB

Instead of allowing both range 1 units as extras, just make it infantry only. Much simpler to have one uniform ratio. Infantry were the backbone of the army so to speak and the ratio above gives twice as many infantry the CA bonus.

Rearranging it, the 4inf/2art/2arm/1TB ratio boils the CA bonus down to the essence of what you described without the use of much language. Plus its a really easy ratio to remember. I'm in full support of this idea, and if others think the ratio should be something else like 3inf/2art/2arm/1TB or whatever, the beauty is that this is so configurable.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 113

RE: patch update - 2/9/2008 3:37:20 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

As for improving fleet AA, I would like it to be consistent and minimize change. The first thing is to simply increase AA capability (Glory does this with a research bump in AA for HFs, maybe it could be larger). Hitting AA=4 for fleets is a big difference from AA=3. For consistency, the best thing would seem to be that if the number of naval vessels is more than twice the number of attacking air, the AA gets a bonus like land flak does in the same condition. IMO, this would be a huge change making land based air a lot less effective in places like the Med, where I usually see just a couple of air units supporting the navies.

I like giving HF's 2 AA shots instead. Before anyone argues that it's not consistent with the game now let me point this out. Among the land units only one gets to shot twice because its considered a dedicated AA platform. Why not of all the sea units give only the HF's this same special advantage? The army has one unit that's great at AA and now the navy could have one too. I think it totally fits. Same rules would apply. HF's would get to target air first and only if there were more air than what the HF's could handle would it then spill over to the other ships AA. Another benefit of allowing HF's 2 shots would allow players to focus on only HF AA tech in the same way players only focus on Flak AA tech. Does anyone ever tech up infantry AA? No. This one simple change helps put HF's back in the game as a viable unit and makes tech investment in their AA rating more worthwhile. No new rules need to be made up. Simply stated, you can now say that the double shot power of flak now applies to HF's too. What confusion could come from that?

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 114

RE: patch update - 2/9/2008 4:00:24 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
"I agree with MA that the current 1+d4 or 6+d4 bumps could use a little extra muscle. However I would prefer more base and not more randomness. So I feel the d4 works well enough. We should start with at least +2 more on the base. 3+d4 and 8+d4 seem like a good starting point. But I would even support 4+d4 and 9+d4 if others felt it needed it.

I don't see a real game problem in need of fixing with the tech events, personally. If there were a lot of support, then I could tweak all of them by adding +1 (better to do a small tweak and see what happens instead of a larger one).

Everything that is 1+d4 would become 2+d4, everything that is 6+d4 would become 7+d4.

Well as I said I think starting with at least +2 is the right move. MA seems to think +3 is the right value and WH says +1. So lets just go with +2 because it's in the middle.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 115

RE: patch update - 2/9/2008 7:11:32 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
I really like the unit class teams concept, it helps to encourage proper proportions. If your willing to program this, then by all means do. If I understand you right what you are basically saying is this without the use of full or partial team descriptions.
Number of units getting CA +3
2arm/2inf/2art/1TB
plus an extra
1arm or 1inf/1TB

What you've said is clearer, but subtly different, in that 1arm/1inf/1art/1TB would not get the benefit. Basically, I'm saying that any number (including an odd numbers, which your clearer rephrasing excludes) of 1arm/1inf/1art teams up to twice the number of TBs would get the CAM.

That was why I phrased it that way.

As for my description about range 1 for the "bonus units", it is because that was how I was thinking of coding it. Don't look at unit types at all, just look at what the range is. I think it would be easiest to code because each range is one loop with the units in a random order. The first N units at range 1 would get the bonus. Using the range, it would also include militia and flak. Which I like. I do like to see militia benefit from CAM, just not contributing to whether you get CAM or not.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 116

RE: patch update - 2/9/2008 10:03:30 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

1. Unique targeting of naval (non-transport) units by CAG, with existing weighting towards warships and CVs.
2. Once all naval (no-transport) units are covered by CAGs, independent selection using the normal (weighted) CAG probabilities.

I'd still let CAGs target transports, just not count it towards uniqueness. I.e. the first step doesn't exclude transports, but doesn't punt to the second step until all _warships_ are targeted.

Looking at the implementation, it is a little more difficult than I had thought. So it may evolve a bit.

Sounds good. But what would happen if you just changed the transport weight to zero?

I appreciate the suggestion, and for a moment thought it a good simple way to get moving. But then I realized it wouldn't quite work out, not if we want the naval priorities to continue in effect for targeting after all the combat naval units are targeted once. In fact, I also realized that my own proposed scheme doesn't even fix the problem I wanted to fix, which is that multiple CAGs can target the same TF instead of spreading over multiple TFs.

I've pondered this for the last hour or two, started some coding, scrapped it, started over, scrapped it, started over. Here is what I've come up with.

1. CAGs first uniquely target combat naval units (CV/HF/LF/SF) according to the priorities (40/4/2/1)
2. Once all combat naval units are targeted, CAGs uniquely target all ship units (CV/HF/LF/SF/TF, including transports) according to the priorities (40/4/2/1/1). "Uniquely" means that after this stage no transport will be targeted twice, and no combat unit will be targeted thrice.
3. Once all combat naval units are targeted twice and all transports are targeted once, CAGs will select targets randomly and independently (with no more prioritization).
4. After CAGs have targeted, all other air units will uniquely target ship units that have not yet been targeted
5. If all ship units are targeted, non-CAG air units select targets at random.

This implementation is pretty simple, 3 strategically placed lines of code.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 117

RE: patch update - 2/9/2008 4:08:44 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

What I was basically saying was that once someone understood what you were saying about CA teams they would essentially take my shortcut and not think in terms of full and partial teams. It was implied that one understood that you did not need 2arm/2inf/2art per TB to get the bonus. 1 of each would suffice too. My statement just reflects the upper limit of total units to recieve that bonus.

But yes your right it does have to be carfully phased to include that assumption. So I'll try again.

1. One tactical bomber can support a combo of 2 (1arm/1inf/1art) teams max.
2. For every team that gets CA, one randomly chosen range 1 land unit, not already part of a CA team, will recieve the CA bonus too.
3. Therefore at max, 1 TB can support up to 8 units. So 9 in total would recieve +3, ei the TB and the 8 supported units.

I hope this is exactly what you intended.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 118

RE: patch update - 2/9/2008 6:48:51 PM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

What I was basically saying was that once someone understood what you were saying about CA teams they would essentially take my shortcut and not think in terms of full and partial teams. It was implied that one understood that you did not need 2arm/2inf/2art per TB to get the bonus. 1 of each would suffice too. My statement just reflects the upper limit of total units to recieve that bonus.

But yes your right it does have to be carfully phased to include that assumption. So I'll try again.

1. One tactical bomber can support a combo of 2 (1arm/1inf/1art) teams max.
2. For every team that gets CA, one randomly chosen range 1 land unit, not already part of a CA team, will recieve the CA bonus too.
3. Therefore at max, 1 TB can support up to 8 units. So 9 in total would recieve +3, ei� the TB and the 8 supported units.

I hope this is exactly what you intended.�

With the two additional points: (i) exclude artilllery from #2, (ii) a number of TBs up to the number of teams from #1 also get CAM (if you have fewer infantry than TB, for example, the number of TBs with CAM may be limited).

Point (i) is actually important from the implementation side _because_ of the way range is done. I would need to have something distinct to do at each range. If I track all the units separately (like for each team I know that exactly one artillery, one arm, one inf) it is OK. But if I allow a random unit class like for #2 then it is difficult to randomize correctly over units that fire at different ranges.

While I like this rule, I've still not signed up to do it. It's a fairly large change, both in play implications and code work. It's gotten some support here from 4 people (me, Lebatron, SGT RIce, Marchall Art) I think, and indeed I don't think anyone spoke against it, but still I'm reluctant to change it for everybody. This would certainly not be mod-ability, but a complete change.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 119

RE: patch update - 2/9/2008 7:44:08 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

While I like this rule, I've still not signed up to do it. It's a fairly large change, both in play implications and code work. It's gotten some support here from 4 people (me, Lebatron, SGT RIce, Marchall Art) I think, and indeed I don't think anyone spoke against it, but still I'm reluctant to change it for everybody. This would certainly not be mod-ability, but a complete change.

What could make you fully buy into it is the fact that nobody yet disagreed that improving CAM was a bad idea. As simple the current rule is as unrealistic it also is. The long debates about this IMO have cumulated in a rule proposition that seems to combine the best of all ideas while also being "codeable".

The current proposal encourages the players to build a distributed force but also leaves some randomness open which "additional" units beyond the teams do get the CAM. Thus 4/2/2/1 units (Inf/Arm/Art/TB) can get CAM as well as 3/3/2/1. I very much like this idea of not limiting the CAM to fixed unit ratios but rather to the number of units obtaining CAM.

What I am uncertain though is if Militia and Flak really should get a benefit. If it cannot be coded otherwise so be it but I'd prefer not to include them for the same reason why they do not qualify as units allowing CAM: they shoot at Air units (AA) or simply suck as offensive units (Mil).

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 120