Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Axis Minors force pool

 
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 >> Axis Minors force pool Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Axis Minors force pool - 12/7/2008 5:57:10 PM   
runyan99

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline 		Does anyone else think the units available to Italy, Romania and Hungary is a little odd? Why can the Italians build paratroops? I'm not aware of any historical operation in which Italian paratroops were present in any significant numbers. On the other hand, I would think any nation should be able to build basic units like artillery and flak, which are currently denied to all of these nations. At present, it seems odd to use Italy to create specialty units like paratroops and submarines.
Post #: 1
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/7/2008 8:33:56 PM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline 		This is intended to sorta-kinda model the relative inferiority of the Italian forces.

As has been pointed out before, a different method could be applied which distinguishes national units (e.g. Italian units are distinguishable from German, distinguishable from Hungarian, etc). If following that approach, I personally would choose to implement a tech offset for some nations (e.g. all Italian infantry have -1 evasion and -1 land attack).

Technically, this is very possible and really not even difficult to implement.

Playability, however, would suffer. The icons of different national units would not stack and the display would quickly become overly cluttered once every national unit has to be displayed by nation.

At least, that was certainly the thought. So an easier way to represent an inferior national military was to restrict the builds available to that nation.

(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 2
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/7/2008 9:38:42 PM   
runyan99

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

This is intended to sorta-kinda model the relative inferiority of the Italian forces.

As has been pointed out before, a different method could be applied which distinguishes national units (e.g. Italian units are distinguishable from German, distinguishable from Hungarian, etc). If following that approach, I personally would choose to implement a tech offset for some nations (e.g. all Italian infantry have -1 evasion and -1 land attack).



An offset would be the best solution, at least for a mod scenario like Global Glory. Allowing inferior tanks, fighters, etc for minor nations would add to the depth of play.

< Message edited by runyan99 -- 12/7/2008 9:39:03 PM >

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 3
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/7/2008 10:02:42 PM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		Interesting. I personally would have no objection to opening up build options to minor countries (incl Allied ones). However, this would an effect on game balance that might have to be considered. While this is not too large (e.g., Italy can can build supply and research, allowing Germany to build more units that might be the case if Italy were also building units), we should be aware of it. But, it might allow for Italy to be something other than a research or submarine factory (I always find an atlantic full of Italian subs amusing). As an alternative, I might suggest allowing Rumania and Hungary to build regular infantry. Italy could be allowed a full range of builds. Canada should be also allowed a full range of builds (to reflect that it actually contributed to building/training a large number of Western Forces). I am not sure about whether this should be extended to Australia (I don't know enough about this aspect historically). With this, I am not sure that we would actually need to have national modifiers (based on what, I might also question. For example, Rommel eventually game around to the idea that Italian troops were actually pretty good; rather they were poorly led).

Just some thoughts.....

(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 4
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 3:04:52 AM   
WanderingHead

 

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

ORIGINAL: runyan99
An offset would be the best solution, at least for a mod scenario like Global Glory. Allowing inferior tanks, fighters, etc for minor nations would add to the depth of play.


Well, I like the idea. It seems easy enough to implement, as long as the screen doesn't get too cluttered for the sake of playability.

I like it enough to contemplate implementing it. It requires a few things

1) save back-compatibility will be broken
2) I need someone to playtest ... not the scenario (I can't change that quickly), but just the more cluttered screen with every nationality explicitly shown. Someone to verify that it isn't such a pain that it isn't worth it.
3) a lot of folks should chime in and say they like it ... since I wouldn't want to do it if it didn't appeal to just about everyone.
4) I'd have to run it by Joel.

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 12/8/2008 3:22:09 AM >

(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 5
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 4:05:18 AM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		I am game for 2 and possibly 3. I presume that by clutter you are referring to the pop-up boxes. What sort of modifiers are you contemplating (and for what units)? Italy suffered from an acute lack of mechanization, so this might translate to its land forces being diminished somewhat. I have almost no knowledge of Hungarian forces. Rumanian forces were more poorly equipped than German ones and were not well integrated into the German command in the East. What modifiers would be contemplated for other forces that were not tested historically (Spain, Turkey) or for countries such as Belgium (in Global Glory)?

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 6
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 4:27:34 AM   
runyan99

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline 		On the axis side I'd suggest -2 for almost all the units. One possible exception is the subs, which should be -1 because the German subs only start a 2 Evasion and 2 attack. Is it possible to customize the tech level for each unit, or is there only one modifier for all units of a nationality?

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 7
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 4:37:52 AM   
runyan99

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline 		On the issue of clutter, I don't see how this could be a problem. Romania and Hungary have such a small industrial capacity, I cannot imagine how they could produce enough units to clutter the screen. Italy is already differentiated.

On the Allied side, Indian and Australian troops would both be considered Commonwealth, and Canada also has a limited industrial capacity. However, I also don't see a compelling case for changing the unit mix or tech levels on the Allied side, so I don't see that any work is really needed here. Adding national flags would only be chrome for the Allied side.

Italy is the only sore thumb that sticks out, because the force mix is so odd. They produce paratroops that never existed, and cannot produce any of the (inferior) armored units of which they had a full corps in Africa. If Italian subs were inferior to German subs, that would be a realistic step. Adding basic units like artillery and flak for the Romanians would be nice, but not critical.

(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 8
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 5:40:11 AM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		1) While I am not against the idea, I have not been completely sold on a compelling need to differentiate the quality of Italian troops. There is no differentiation among WA troops, which while perhaps ultimately accurate, does not reflect the very real challenges encountered by the green US troops in North Africa. Anyhow, leaving this issue aside, troop quality only matters in those relatively rare moments when German troop production is maxxed-out. But this is where I see the biggest impact coming into play (see point two).

2) During 'slow times' I will always build units with Germany and build supply / resources with Italy. If I need garrison troops or subs, I will use Italy. But, once the big battles start to occur in Russia -- when German builds are limited by population rather than resources -- Italian ability to build non-militia troops will have a significant impact and will affect play balance. Furthermore, Italian army units (i.e., militia) do not get damaged. They get destroyed. However, with regular infantry and arty etc. being produced, the Italian ability to produce damagable units comes into play as well.

I raise these issues not out of objection to the idea. Rather, I raise them to ensure we properly consider the implications of adding a population pool of 6 for more meaningful / resilient units such as infantry and artillery. Perhaps most will conclude that the impact will be relatively minor. I personally am not so sure - especially when I find it easier to win as Axis already. Food for thought.

(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 9
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 7:22:51 AM   
runyan99

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline 		In response to point 1 above, Italian units generally performed poorly and had a tendency to surrender on a regular basis.

That said, it is unclear to me why India can produce artillery, but Italy cannot. The mix is bad, as elite units can be built but not basic ones. Remove the ability to build subs and paratroops, or make them inferior to German units.

On the subject of armor, if the Italians cannot build them, they should at least start the game with one unit to represent the significant numbers of Italian tanks used in north Africa.

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 10
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 9:06:40 AM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		The French tended to surrender more, and they have no penalty!

On the more serious side, I am curious about what others think. Were I designing the game from scratch, I would wholeheartedly agree with Runyan99 and would model victory conditions and other factors correspondingly. However, this far along the issue of play balance is an important one. I am not saying that balance cannot be achieved, but I am wary of throwing things out of whack. I guess I am saying some playtesting would definitely be in order (I am game for this, as always).

What do others think (I know you are out there - many have commented on other posts recently!)? Any suggestions for allowing more varied Italian builds? Would a generic -1 penalty offset quality sufficiently?

(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 11
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 9:37:26 AM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		Interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II 
Italian production was certainly not that impressive - it was outperformed by Canada in almost every measure shown. 28 in total, Italy produced approx 1/2 the number of subs as Russia. To place this in perspective, this amount was approximately 2% the number of subs made by Germany.... Perhaps this is an argument for removing Italian sub production (and paras). But then, this too would affect balance of play....

I am not sure what the facts reveal about India's actual military production (as opposed to that allowed by the game....) Should India be able to produce arty? air? other?

Thoughts?

< Message edited by Lucky1 -- 12/8/2008 9:46:41 AM >

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 12
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 7:41:47 PM   
SGT Rice

 

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline 		IMHO this change would be a big boost in terms of game flavor ... having the Italians represented by Germans units always bugged the heck out of me.

I'm all for it and would welcome the chance to test such a modification.

Questions for BB:

1) Is there an upper limit of units that can be displayed in the unit pop-up?

(If the unit display took up the entire screen it might look unusual (can't see the map anymore) but I don't think it would do any damage to game play.)

2) What unit attributes can you vary by nationality? Could attributes like speed be varied between countries?

(One of the biggest differences between German and Italian units was the range of their naval units; the Germans had long range subs/ships designed to operate in the Atlantic from bases in Germany, while the Italians designed their ships only for operations in the Med).

3) Can you select different modifiers for different units within a nationality?

(I would suggest -1 combat modifiers on all Italian units except armor; they should get a -2).

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 13
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 8:06:23 PM   
WanderingHead

 

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

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
1) Is there an upper limit of units that can be displayed in the unit pop-up?


Good question. I don't really know. There is a chance it would be problematic, but I think it would be fine. There is already a good deal of separation that occurs once units get into combat and experience different levels of suppression, for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
2) What unit attributes can you vary by nationality? Could attributes like speed be varied between countries?
3) Can you select different modifiers for different units within a nationality?


For both of these, the answer is that I haven't yet implemented anything so it could be whatever. I think I would start with the goal of making it the most flexible possible (every nation, every unit type, every tech level, individually configurable offset from the Player's values) so that we don't regret it later.

I think it doesn't take much of a tech offset to make this interesting and viable. Just -1 Ev and LA for Italy/Rumania/Hungary would discourage many builds there, since they would still be prime places for supply and research builds (since they experience no such penalty).

My general plan, if Joel approves, would be to get a release of the code as is right now. I've added the Map Preferences option of seeing all nations' units separately with the flags displayed on the icon, which would give people a feel for what the UI would do.

This tech level change would have to be a follow on Beta next year. I'm just not sure how thrilled Joel is with me dragging the evolution of this game along indefinitely.


BTW - Unit differentiation by nationality also allows for a Rumanian surrender that could work like Italy's (since now you would be able to see which units would disappear).


(in reply to SGT Rice)
Post #: 14
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 8:14:39 PM   
Marshall Art

 

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline 		I generally like the idea of having regular units coming from the Axis minor countries - while the Allies already produce varous units (India, Canada, Australia) the Axis minors are too limited to research and supplies indeed. Just last week me as Allies was invaded by hordes of Italian Paras - WTF...

With full appreciation of all individual exceptional combat records by minor countries's units I think it is fair to say that ON AVERAGE they were inferior to those of the major powers due to the following reasons: ON AVERAGE limited supplies, particularly in modern weapons, limited support by the major powers, limited tactical skill, in part due to limited training or limited combat experience, resulting in inferior leadership.

While there are pros and cons to give different troops or different nationalities individual modifiers I support the generic -1 for Evasion, and all attack values. All other factors should remain the same, except build times. And still I would opt to disallow Minors adn CW powers (Canada, Australia, India) (except Italy) building Carriers, BBs, Armor and Heavy Bombers, since I cannot think of an actual example. On the other hand, a Rumanian or Australian DD, sounds interesting... (Yes I know Canada built tanks but for simplicity reasons I would ignore this...)

I think that increased build times could keep Axis players from mass-producing cheap units, and would reflect the limited industrial output of minor powers. Not sure if this can be implemented though.

I am not too concerned with the "clutter" expected as French, Italian units already have their flag waving. I was always confused which fighter actually was the Romanian one.

I think that depending on whether Commenwealth troops are intended to be treated as minor power's troops (I opt against it as the WA/CW troops had a much more uniform standard, last but not least because most weapons came from Britain or the USA) the clutter would come from Allied national flags rather than those few Romanian or Hungarian Infantry etc.

I also think that the fact that all Italian units disappear when Italy surrenders would keep any Axis player from relying on Italian units too much except home defence. As a trade of, the Italian force pool could be lowered from 3 to 2? The same rules could apply to other Axis Minors, i.e. Romanian units disappear once Romania surrenders.

(in reply to SGT Rice)
Post #: 15
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 8:44:21 PM   
Marshall Art

 

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

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

I think I would start with the goal of making it the most flexible possible (every nation, every unit type, every tech level, individually configurable offset from the Player's values) so that we don't regret it later.



Not sure that we want to open the can of worms at this point, e.g. "Romania built better artillery than Hungary - or not?", with the individual differentiation by country. Next we could discuss individual strenghs of the Allied/CW powers? After all, I liked the overview for all country's tech levels ON ONE PAGE, how can this be done with four countries more on the Axis side alone (Hungary, Romania, Italy, Spain)? Still this would allow for flexibility once the fine tuning begins...

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

I think it doesn't take much of a tech offset to make this interesting and viable. Just -1 Ev and LA for Italy/Rumania/Hungary would discourage many builds there, since they would still be prime places for supply and research builds (since they experience no such penalty).

BTW - Unit differentiation by nationality also allows for a Rumanian surrender that could work like Italy's (since now you would be able to see which units would disappear).



It appears I was too late with my thoughts - I cannot agree more here.

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 16
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 9:30:50 PM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		To be clear, is the -1 attribute penalty being proposed only for land units, land units and air units, or all units? (my personal preference is that it apply only to land and air units, with special provisions for subs and armour) Too, is it across all attributes or only for evasion and primary attack (this would be my preference: e.g., for artillery, naval attack remains the same, fighter ground attack remains the same)? 

I think a case could be made for making Italian armour like Japanese armour - no armour values, with -1 penalty for land attack and evasion. For subs, I think the massive Italian production is rather laughably a-historical. Perhaps Sgt. Rice's suggestion of a range limitation (-2?) would provide greater incentive to produce subs in Germany, rather than Italy.

(in reply to Marshall Art)
Post #: 17
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 11:16:27 PM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		For her size, Canada was actually a major producer of allied air (around 500 lancasters alone), producing almost 40% more aircraft than Italy. Canada was also the second largest producer of motor vehicles (behind the US), and a major munitions producer as well. Her merchant marine was one of the largest in the world at wars end. I would argue that, apart from battleships and carriers, Canada ought to have an expanded production line (same population pool). That said, I would fully expect that art (gaming) would mirror life and that most of her production would be in the area of transports.



< Message edited by Lucky1 -- 12/8/2008 11:20:53 PM >

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 18
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/8/2008 11:31:00 PM   
SGT Rice

 

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


ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

I think I would start with the goal of making it the most flexible possible (every nation, every unit type, every tech level, individually configurable offset from the Player's values) so that we don't regret it later.


Good idea; once you implement something like this, you never know what kind of innovations might bubble up to take advantage of it. Would the offsets be moddable?

quote:


ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
Not sure that we want to open the can of worms at this point, e.g. "Romania built better artillery than Hungary - or not?", with the individual differentiation by country.Next we could discuss individual strenghs of the Allied/CW powers?


I would suggest that most differences in allied forces would be unimportant in strategic terms ... i.e., not enough to justify a combat differential in an AWD unit. But if there were major historic differences ... those are the cases where this kind of mod would add flavor/fun/simulation value to the game (at least for history buffs like myself).

One obvious Allied example would be the differences between British and US CVs; British CVs carried less than half the aircraft of their US counterparts (-1 or -2 air/ship/ground/torpedo attack) but they had armored flight decks (+1 evasion/armor/durability).

quote:


ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
After all, I liked the overview for all country's tech levels ON ONE PAGE, how can this be done with four countries more on the Axis side alone (Hungary, Romania, Italy, Spain)?


The only downside I see is the one you describe ... the players can't see all of the tech levels on one page. But one could envision a simple addition to the UI that appends small nationality flags w/modifiers in the margins of the Unit Intelligence Screen if folks agree that its an issue.

quote:

BTW - Unit differentiation by nationality also allows for a Rumanian surrender that could work like Italy's (since now you would be able to see which units would disappear).


Definitely a nice side benefit. How about this one: Could movement limits be imposed on Finnish units (i.e., Finland, Karelia, Leningrad), thereby allowing them to be accurately represented as the high quality infantry they were (rather than pathetic militia units).

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 19
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/9/2008 6:55:46 AM   
Forwarn45

 

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline 		I have thought about this a little bit and don't have a strong opinion at this point. But I don't see much to gain from changing the Commonwealth or other minor Axis countries (Hungary, Rumania). The Commonwealth can already produce useful units - transports, infantry, artillery, fighters - and rating them equivalent to US and British forces is realistic. Given their production, there isn't much utility in producing units like carriers. It would be nice to see which units are commonwealth - but I think the addition of separate boxes and categories for these units could needlessly complicate the game. As for the minor Axis countries, they fielded enormous but ill-equipped armies in the war. I think the production of milita best simuulates this. And I personally don't want to see all those boxes.

Italy is a different story. Its units are already differentiated from Germany's - so there is no addition of boxes. And it fielded an enormous army in the war with varying unit qualities. I think they should be able to produce fighter units like the Commonwealth countries. And I don't really see any good reason to restrict what they produce at all. I'd suggest all their land and air units be given a -1 to evasion and -1 to attack compared to the Germans. As for their naval units, I don't see that they should be made any less survivable - but perhaps giving them a -1 to attack would be appropriate - maybe for all units for simplicity (although you might have to adjust their starting forces).

In any case, I think there is already a lot of depth in the game. But I like some of the simplicity as well. I would be cautious about making these types of changes.

(in reply to SGT Rice)
Post #: 20
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/9/2008 5:28:00 PM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline 		I think that the words of caution should be taken seriously.

When I said I would start with the goal of making it as flexible as possible (adjustable offset for every tech of every unit type of every nation), I meant I would make the mod-ability that way. I wouldn't suggest an actual scenario tweaking every little detail (but if someone wanted to do it for play in his circle, he could ... assuming it happens at all). If anything I'd suggest (and implement Global Glory) only a very simple implementation.

In fact, the more I think of it the more I think I would just classify nations as Major Powers or Minor Powers, and have a penalty for Minors. It would be much easier for the player.

Rules like this are actually, in general, not all that hard to implement. But implementing a good UI to compliment it is very difficult. So it also has to be something where some simple text pop-ups are adequate (and don't feel like an obvious downgrade from the beautiful UI that already exists). If the rules are simple I thought some text in the unit (V)iew popup would be adequate.

Thanks for the comments. I only want to do things if it interests ya'll. This triggered my interest because it is a topic that comes up repeatedly.

(in reply to Forwarn45)
Post #: 21
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/9/2008 11:32:32 PM   
midgard30


Posts: 178
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: offline 		From a beginner point of view, I agree with the idea of keeping these new rules and UI as simple as possible (major, minor nations would be a good one, IMHO). The learning curve is already steep enough even for someone that had a small experience with the previous game. One of the strenght of this game, is to have a simple mechanic to play complex strategies.

But even without any penalty to units, having their nationality would add a nice historical value to the game.

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 22
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/23/2008 5:14:14 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline 		Having thought about this a bit more and contemplated code ... the easiest thing would be simple evasion adjustments. Largely because it can be leveraged off of the existing evasion adjustments.

Also, for simplicity of implementation as well as simplicity of play I would only classify nations as one of two types. I'm actually not sure what to call them ... roughly "Major Power" and "Minor Power", but that doesn't quite capture the essence when there are "even more Minor" Powers that only produce militia. I welcome any naming suggestions for this.

Anyway, the mod-ability would be limited to the following:
  • for every nation, its units are either degraded in capability or they are not
  • each unit class (land/naval/air) can be selected to have degraded capbility or not (militia would never be degraded).
A penalty is suffered only by those units of both (i) a degraded nation, and (ii) a degraded unit class. If a degraded unit is firing, the fired-upon unit gets a +1 evasion bonus. If a degrade unit is fired upon, it gets a -1 evasion penalty.

In terms of how I would like to configure the GG scenario with this, I would apply the penalty for land and air units only (I would not include naval).

For nations, I would say
major
  • USA
  • UK
  • Canada
  • Commonwealth
  • Germany
  • Spain
  • France
  • China
  • Japan
  • Russia
  • Netherlands
minor (with infantry/armor/fighter builds allowed)
  • Italy
  • Rumania
  • Turkey
  • India (this would be new ...)
BTW - There is already a hook to individually per-nation turn the flag displays on (like currently exists for France and Italy). So in addition to my recent change to allow the player to view every nation, the scenario can force display of only the pertinent nations. A little less cluttered.

(in reply to midgard30)
Post #: 23
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/23/2008 5:38:37 AM   
runyan99

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline 		Looks good to me. I might put Spain in the minor camp, but it's not important. You forgot to list Hungary.

There seem to be a limited number of 'boxes' in the production screen, so I wonder if seperating India from the Commonwealth, for example, causes an interface problem in the unit build screen.

< Message edited by runyan99 -- 12/23/2008 5:39:48 AM >

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 24
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/23/2008 7:09:14 AM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		I look forward to playtesting!!! (I am generally quite excited, but will voice some concern about Italy churning out 2 or 3 armour per turn. Even at the penalty rates described, these will be a formidable addition - hence my suggestion that they lack armour like Japanese tanks as well....)

p.s. I would agree with Runyan's Spain comment.

(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 25
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/23/2008 5:23:51 PM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline 		Regarding Hungary, what I meant, sort of implicitly, was ...
"major"
  • USA
  • UK
  • Canada
  • Commonwealth
  • Germany
  • Spain
  • France
  • China
  • Japan
  • Russia
  • Netherlands
"minor" (with infantry/armor/fighter builds allowed)
  • Italy
  • Rumania
  • Turkey
  • India (this would be new ...)
"insignificant" (only militia allowed)
  • Hungary


I don't have any particular objection to moving Spain, France, China, Netherlands, or Hungary around in this list (for China - the reason is the rare and subtle effect of national factories falling under friendly occupation ... if China takes India, or Russia takes China). This is just what I came up with as a first pass.

Runyan, your obervation on the production screen running out of room is quite observant ... there was a little problem which actually prevented me from doing this a year ago. In fact, it is a problem whenever you have more than 7 nations producing (where all captured enemy factories are collapsed into one "Captured" nation), which could happen even in a regular game. But it must be massively infrequent, since noone has ever reported that problem (my example: USA UK Canada CW France Netherlands Turkey Captured, could only occur near the end of a Allied victory after Germany invaded Turkey).

Anyway, I fixed the issue. If the number of nations exceeds 7 then the tiles will now start to double up in two rows, so you could in principle show 14 flags.

I made a toy example by having Germany attack TLC and Italy to make them join the WAW.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 12/23/2008 5:24:23 PM >

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 26
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/23/2008 6:38:54 PM   
SGT Rice

 

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

original: WanderingHead

Having thought about this a bit more and contemplated code ... the easiest thing would be simple evasion adjustments. Largely because it can be leveraged off of the existing evasion adjustments.


This sounds like a very exciting change to implement; I look forward to trying it out.

Seems to me that once players get used to this idea, many will want to fine tune the OOBs somewhat to give the game more historical texture. So I would strongly suggest allowing more flexibility in the application of the evasion adjustments; i.e., allow modifiers to be selected for each unit type (INF, ABN, ARM, ART, etc. ...) and for each evasion modifier itself to be selectable (i.e., -2, -1, +1).

This might head off some unintended consequences like the one Sean mentioned ... Italian armor. Historically the Italians definitely possessed armor units on an AWD scale; they were a permanent fixture on the North African battlefields. They also were decidely inferior to the British armor they faced. But with only a -1 offensive/defensive evasion adjustment (to the baseline German EV/LA levels), Italian armor units would be equal or superior to WA armor for most of the game.

Another example is the Rumanian/Hungarian force pools. All of my eastern front games include corps-level infantry & mechanized formations from both countries. But the Hungarians are almost always given a clear edge in unit quality/firepower. My first impulse would be to make all Hungarian units -1, but make Rumanian INF/ARM units -2.

None of these suggestions deals with the potential problem of the Germans being able to pump up their armor unit numbers, perhaps decisively changing play balance be making the combined arms combat modifier more available to the Axis and less available to the Allies. I would suggest that another requirement would be to leave armor units off the Italy/Hungary/Rumania build menus, but place a limited number (1-2 each) of unbuilt armor units on their production spirals.

But I think its a nice step forward regardless of the implementation; thanks WH for taking it under consideration.

< Message edited by SGT Rice -- 12/23/2008 6:57:38 PM >

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 27
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/23/2008 7:37:14 PM   
WanderingHead

 

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

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
concern about Italy churning out 2 or 3 armour per turn


I'm not concerned about this. It is a huge amount of production into reduced capability units instead of research. That's what I think is nice about making this change, it allows the player to make an interesting tradeoff of unit quantity over quality (which is a bit subtle since the quality impact is less research).

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
Seems to me that once players get used to this idea, many will want to fine tune the OOBs somewhat to give the game more historical texture. So I would strongly suggest allowing more flexibility in the application of the evasion adjustments; i.e., allow modifiers to be selected for each unit type (INF, ABN, ARM, ART, etc. ...) and for each evasion modifier itself to be selectable (i.e., -2, -1, +1).


I used to agree (somewhere near the beginning of the thread) .

The kicker here is that if I keep it simple then I might be able to squeek it in quickly with save compatibility. Also, there will be limited GUI support. The Evasion modifier will be reported as usual in combat, and the national "minor" penalty will be mentioned in the unit [v]iew mode (select unit and hit "v"). I think that would be adequate, but if the implementation gets more complicated it may warrant a better GUI which I could not support.

Honestly, I've been working on this game for a long time making it more complicated , but here I think that it would be good to limit the extra complication.

I suppose I should change my proposal, since there was support for moving Spain and since Hungary was weird (and for crying out loud, my father in law is Hungarian... I shouldn't insult him).

"major"
  • USA
  • UK
  • Canada
  • Commonwealth
  • Germany
  • France
  • China
  • Japan
  • Russia
  • Netherlands
"minor" (with infantry/art/armor/fighter builds allowed)
  • Italy
  • Spain
  • Rumania
  • Turkey
  • India
  • Hungary
  • maybe every other neutral, even though they don't have factories


I'm still sort of tempted to move China into the "minor" camp (and correspondingly adjust their starting capabilities). It would prevent the building of odd super-powered Chinese nationality units when the USA lands there or odd under-powered units when China takes India. But those events are so rare that maybe I should ignore the nice consistency it would buy.


< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 12/23/2008 7:44:23 PM >

(in reply to SGT Rice)
Post #: 28
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/23/2008 9:40:59 PM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		I agree with WanderingHead about the desirability of choice and that, properly implemented, the available range of options will be neutral in their relative impact. As with artillery, my concern is that one choice becomes so compelling as to limit variety in practice. But again, this is somewhat premature without actually having seen the changes in action. I am heartened to see the activity in the forum and think that a balanced range of views are being heard, so I am optimistic that we are moving in the right direction. Very exciting.

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 29
RE: Axis Minors force pool - 12/24/2008 6:08:06 AM   
runyan99

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline 		I wouldn't make the Chinese a minor because they are already handicapped by their inability to afford tech and improve their units. 

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> Axis Minors force pool Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.671