Kombrig mod

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Kombrig mod

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] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Kombrig mod

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Kombrig mod - 2/23/2013 6:34:58 PM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

The recent discussions encouraged me to move from theory to practice and I decided to edit the latest "new dawn" random game file.

I made the following changes:

1) Cavalry combat detail stats are now exactly like infantry. When compared to infantry the cavalry has now simply better movement rates and better recon.

2) Recon stats

Edited SFTs' recon points.
Trucks, artillery, inf guns, AT guns, horses, flak, mortar, bazooka, MG, staff, katyusha, train - all have now 0 recon points.
Cavalry and guerilla - 2 recon points
Armored car and halftrack - 3 recon points
Jeep - 5 recon points
All the rest - 1 recon points

Recon can not see behind 2 hexes.

Landscape hide points increased.

The amount of recon points needed for full information about enemy unit is increased.

If you want better picture about enemy you actually have to engage him.

3) Armor combat stats modified (decreased) when attacking in city or capitol. Armor combat stats modified (decreased) when defending in urban, suburban, forest etc tough terrain.

4) Bazooka combat stats modified (increased) when fighting in urban or capitol.

5) Research cost decreased for level III and IV (some items also level I and II).

6) Political points cost (when they are produced) reduced.

7) Raw cost (when producing) reduced.

8) Oil cost (when moving and fighting) reduced.

9) Supply cost (when produced) reduced.

10) Mortar attack against infantry significantly increased. Maybe someone will find the mortars now actually useful?

11) Machine guns attack against infantry increased (nearly the same value as defense)

12) Machine guns I-IV, Bazookas I-IV, Mortars I-II and AT guns I-II can be paradropped. Mortar II and AT gun II can be produced even if next level is researched.

13) Every nation get rangers and guerillas. Guerilla fighting power decreased. Ranger cost increased.

14) Readiness
Unfortunately the rulevars seem not to allow to modify the readiness of arriving production. Also it seems that hardcore production is not very popular among ATG gamers. Therefore I made up the following solution.

Readiness penalty when assigning a unit to another HQ - zero (no penalty. I always considered this kind of penalty not very realistic).

Readiness penalty for strategic transfers - minus 20.

Readiness penalty when transfering SFTs between units under the same HQ - minus 80.

Readiness penalty when transfering SFTs between different HQs - minus 90.

This means that players can reinforce their frontline units directly from the front line HQ but if they do it too much, then the readiness of the reinforced units will drop critically. Of course if the sector is without major action, one may risk to reinforce frontline units heavily in this way but it will not work if you want to go offensive next turn or if you are facing enemy onslaught.

If a unit needs strong reinforcements, it is wise to pull it back and then reinforce it. After a couple of turns it is ready to return the frontline.

Also player can choose to start to form reserve units. This means that such units will have at first 20 readiness.

The cost of trains in raw and production points is lessened. So strategic transfers can be made more easily (and the readiness loss is only minus 20).

15) City production increased to 16 000, capital - 35 000.

I'm looking for playtesters to see how these changes work. 1vs1 or 2vs2 game would be great (large of x-large map).

< Message edited by kombrig -- 2/23/2013 9:22:18 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Kombrig mod - 2/26/2013 7:40:05 AM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

So nobody really interested too see if the changes work or not? Just in case I will post the announcement also in the Looking for Opponents section.

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 2

RE: Kombrig mod - 2/26/2013 1:21:24 PM

Rander

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/18/2007
Status: offline

Hello.

Here my opinion about those changes:

1) and 2) --> Like the idea of a more difficult recon.

3) and 4) --> Also like the idea of armor less capable of taking cities.

5) to 9) and 15) --> It's true that on most games high levels of technology are not reached. But reducing cost and increasing productions maybe makes high levels very easy to reach. But I think is the same fun/boredom to play everything with level II or everything with level IV. With the increased city production and reduced PP production cost I think that cost of tech levels should remain.
Don't agree with the reduced raw/oil cost of fighting and production because reduces the strategic value of oil wells and raw mines. (I like the ERM Mod, that gives the resources more value, because you need to control the resource hexe and all the way to the Supreme HQ).

10) and 11) --> I don't think that the problem with machineguns and mortars are their attack/defense values. I think that the problem is that machineguns die very easy when attacking and mortars when defending.

14) --> Hardcore Production has the problem that turns the game on a clickfest (even more

).
With this modification you need to plan more carefully your offensives (or enemy offensives). Could be funny. Of course this way of managing the units will need A LOT of more supply than usual.
Also I think that assigning a unit to another HQ should have a little penalty (maybe a 5%) to reflect a period of re-coordination with the new HQ and the other units of the HQ.

Bye!
Rander.

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 3

RE: Kombrig mod - 2/26/2013 2:05:27 PM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

quote:

I don't think that the problem with machineguns and mortars are their attack/defense values. I think that the problem is that machineguns die very easy when attacking and mortars when defending.

The attack values for both were actually very low - 20plus something (at the same time artillery is around 100). The solution for preventing machine guns being killed would be making them rear area troops. But maybe this would make them too untouchable? I mean, they were used also during attacks to suppress the defenders. Playtest would show.

quote:

It's true that on most games high levels of technology are not reached. But reducing cost and increasing productions maybe makes high levels very easy to reach. But I think is the same fun/boredom to play everything with level II or everything with level IV. With the increased city production and reduced PP production cost I think that cost of tech levels should remain.

Maybe you have indeed a point. Playtest would help to determine.

quote:

Don't agree with the reduced raw/oil cost of fighting and production because reduces the strategic value of oil wells and raw mines.

Look at this way - the number of oil wells or raw mines is not changed. If you use the current settings and you loose for example a raw mine to the enemy, then you loose xy percent of your raw capacity. When the settings are changed and you loose a raw mine, the lost percent of raw capacity is exactly the same. So the value of raw mines and oil wells should be basically the same with old and new settings.

My problem is that with current settings you can't really develop your air arm. No bombing campaigns, you simply can never afford it. All air power is only to counter armor and to counter divebombers.

quote:

Also I think that assigning a unit to another HQ should have a little penalty (maybe a 5%) to reflect a period of re-coordination with the new HQ and the other units of the HQ.

You have a point.

< Message edited by kombrig -- 2/26/2013 2:11:47 PM >

(in reply to Rander)

Post #: 4

RE: Kombrig mod - 2/26/2013 8:15:32 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

Intersting ideas, I'm not able to devote any time to supporting the mod right now, but I do feel that these are some good ideas.

I added some comments, I imagine these comments will spark some interest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

The recent discussions encouraged me to move from theory to practice and I decided to edit the latest "new dawn" random game file.

I made the following changes:

1) Cavalry combat detail stats are now exactly like infantry. When compared to infantry the cavalry has now simply better movement rates and better recon.

How about adding a supply consumption increase for cavalry ? Horses + Men eat more than Men, lots more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

2) Recon stats

Edited SFTs' recon points.
Trucks, artillery, inf guns, AT guns, horses, flak, mortar, bazooka, MG, staff, katyusha, train - all have now 0 recon points.
Cavalry and guerilla - 2 recon points
Armored car and halftrack - 3 recon points
Jeep - 5 recon points
All the rest - 1 recon points

Recon can not see behind 2 hexes.

Landscape hide points increased.

The amount of recon points needed for full information about enemy unit is increased.

If you want better picture about enemy you actually have to engage him.

What about aircraft and ships ? My best recon is ususally done with fighters. There really isn't a dedicated recon aircraft in the standard game, although there is a lineage of them in the Bombur mods. It also seems to me that units on high mountains can see better ? I know the game doesn't allow for LOS or even elevation aspects but is it possible to give a unit in "simulated" elevated terrain a bonus towards spotting ?

The thought of observation balloons does come to mind, although out of use in WWII, they were a common artillery spotter in WWI I think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

3) Armor combat stats modified (decreased) when attacking in city or capitol. Armor combat stats modified (decreased) when defending in urban, suburban, forest etc tough terrain.

You mean it isn't already ? Wow, that one is overdue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

4) Bazooka combat stats modified (increased) when fighting in urban or capitol.

Ditto.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

5) Research cost decreased for level III and IV (some items also level I and II).

Not sure about this, but the research costs, time to produce the reseach and complexity of the tech level all should be tied together somehow. That's the balancing act. Atom bombs popping up after 3 months of research really shouldn't happen, (I know you don't intend for this to happen), ok a bit hyperbolic but you get my point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

6) Political points cost (when they are produced) reduced.

See above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

7) Raw cost (when producing) reduced.

Seems more of a mass balance and time rate of removal and refinement issue to me. 200,000 panzers take a certain amount of steel which takes a certain amount of ore, which takes a certain amount of time to extract, which folds back in to movement rates and game map scale. Or at least it should. IMO !

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

8) Oil cost (when moving and fighting) reduced.

<sigh> I think you get my drift from the other answers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

9) Supply cost (when produced) reduced.

...

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

10) Mortar attack against infantry significantly increased. Maybe someone will find the mortars now actually useful?

These are not "front line units" and as such the combat model handles these differently from grunts. They are more like artillery. I used to use them quite a bit, they are more surviveable than front line units. I think they are undermodeled in terms of their ammunition usage and logistical trail. True that small mortars were part of the carry supply of many infantry in the WWII period but sustained fights lasting more than a typical planned engagement would quickly burn up any supply they had on hand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

11) Machine guns attack against infantry increased (nearly the same value as defense)

Worth a look, the more lead thrown out there, the more casualties. Must break out the same, (now) tired points about the logistical tail and supply consumption rates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

12) Machine guns I-IV, Bazookas I-IV, Mortars I-II and AT guns I-II can be paradropped. Mortar II and AT gun II can be produced even if next level is researched.

Neat !

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

13) Every nation get rangers and guerillas. Guerilla fighting power decreased. Ranger cost increased.

Cool !

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

14) Readiness
Unfortunately the rulevars seem not to allow to modify the readiness of arriving production. Also it seems that hardcore production is not very popular among ATG gamers. Therefore I made up the following solution.

Readiness penalty when assigning a unit to another HQ - zero (no penalty. I always considered this kind of penalty not very realistic).

Readiness penalty for strategic transfers - minus 20.

Readiness penalty when transfering SFTs between units under the same HQ - minus 80.

Readiness penalty when transfering SFTs between different HQs - minus 90.

This means that players can reinforce their frontline units directly from the front line HQ but if they do it too much, then the readiness of the reinforced units will drop critically. Of course if the sector is without major action, one may risk to reinforce frontline units heavily in this way but it will not work if you want to go offensive next turn or if you are facing enemy onslaught.

If a unit needs strong reinforcements, it is wise to pull it back and then reinforce it. After a couple of turns it is ready to return the frontline.

Also player can choose to start to form reserve units. This means that such units will have at first 20 readiness.

The cost of trains in raw and production points is lessened. So strategic transfers can be made more easily (and the readiness loss is only minus 20).

15) City production increased to 16 000, capital - 35 000.

I'm looking for playtesters to see how these changes work. 1vs1 or 2vs2 game would be great (large of x-large map).

Strat transfer to me represents a demobilization and packing up the whole unit to move it somewhere else. Very disruptive.

Why penalize inter unit transfers within the same HQ ? A "temporary" reassignment as a result of combat was a necessity that was fairly easily carried out historically speaking, (IMO !).

A simple HQ transfer shouldn't be so disruptive should it ? I guess it depends on the timescale of the turn but how long should it take to reestablish lines of communication and supply from one HQ to another IRL ?

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 5

RE: Kombrig mod - 2/27/2013 7:12:35 AM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

quote:

How about adding a supply consumption increase for cavalry ? Horses + Men eat more than Men, lots more.

Good point.

quote:

What about aircraft and ships ? My best recon is ususally done with fighters. There really isn't a dedicated recon aircraft in the standard game, although there is a lineage of them in the Bombur mods.

Yes, currently only the fighters have very good recon value.

quote:

It also seems to me that units on high mountains can see better ? I know the game doesn't allow for LOS or even elevation aspects but is it possible to give a unit in "simulated" elevated terrain a bonus towards spotting ?

Haven't figured out how to do that.

quote:

You mean it isn't already ? Wow, that one is overdue.

I'm not sure. The current impression is that a big pack of armor without any support can take entrenched cities without problem and even does not suffer much losses.

However the armor defense in forest, low mountains or urban was usually unmodified with the old settings. I took them a little bit down but not as much as attack stats.

quote:

Not sure about this, but the research costs, time to produce the reseach and complexity of the tech level all should be tied together somehow. That's the balancing act. Atom bombs popping up after 3 months of research really shouldn't happen, (I know you don't intend for this to happen), ok a bit hyperbolic but you get my point

Agree that this would be better.

The idea of giving more raw, oil and reducing costs is simple - in this way you can create a real war machine and not a shadow of it like with the old settings. Maybe I indeed lowered the costs too much, playtest will help to determine.

However even with the new settings you are not able to produce endless amounts. There will be a limit. The number of raw mines and oil wells is not increased.

quote:

Why penalize inter unit transfers within the same HQ ? A "temporary" reassignment as a result of combat was a necessity that was fairly easily carried out historically speaking, (IMO !).

Like I mentioned earlier, unfortunately the editor seems not to allow to set the readiness of arriving production. So I choose this way to simulate the period of forming and training units. These settings should also force players to think about forming reserves and using strategic transfer because the "flying production" will not help you anymore so much - if you transfer production out of HQ, it looses significantly readiness. Yes, I too would prefer that the penalty of inter unit transfers under the same HQ is less (ATG stock settings are minus 25 readiness) but I thought that it would be more interesting to simulate better logistics and reserves than inter unit transfers. Had to make a choice.

quote:

A simple HQ transfer shouldn't be so disruptive should it ? I guess it depends on the timescale of the turn but how long should it take to reestablish lines of communication and supply from one HQ to another IRL ?

Speaking of timescale, the current one (ome month - one turn) means really nothing. Currently the infantry marching distance in one month is nearly the same as heavy artillery range. I think that with current settings more appropriate time scale would be something like one turn - one week. But I'm not sure if it should be really changed.

< Message edited by kombrig -- 2/27/2013 8:02:30 AM >

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 6

RE: Kombrig mod - 2/28/2013 5:47:37 PM

Rander

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

Why penalize inter unit transfers within the same HQ ? A "temporary" reassignment as a result of combat was a necessity that was fairly easily carried out historically speaking, (IMO !).

Like I mentioned earlier, unfortunately the editor seems not to allow to set the readiness of arriving production. So I choose this way to simulate the period of forming and training units. These settings should also force players to think about forming reserves and using strategic transfer because the "flying production" will not help you anymore so much - if you transfer production out of HQ, it looses significantly readiness. Yes, I too would prefer that the penalty of inter unit transfers under the same HQ is less (ATG stock settings are minus 25 readiness) but I thought that it would be more interesting to simulate better logistics and reserves than inter unit transfers. Had to make a choice.

Mmmmm I think that "flying production" will be still present. See no reason to centralize production and make strategic transfers.

I mean:

Now people sends production to Combat HQ, then forms the new unit and throw it into combat (even on the same turn). This new unit will have 75 on readiness.

With the new system I see two options:

1. The transfer way.
Concentrate production in one (or some) HQ's. Then built the unit (readiness low to 20), then do strategic transfer (another 20% less readiness) and then reassing to new HQ. Wait 2-3 turns to have the unit combat-ready.
Maybe this is the more realistic way. But you have...

2. The keep the flying production way.
Send production to Combat HQ's. Built the unit (readiness down to 20). Wait 2-3 turns to have the unit combat-ready.
This way is less realistic, but you save the readiness penalty of the strategic tansfer.

Bye!
Rander.

P.S. Have to say that I like the idea of simulate the period of formation and training of the new units.

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 7

RE: Kombrig mod - 2/28/2013 6:26:49 PM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

quote:

Mmmmm I think that "flying production" will be still present. See no reason to centralize production and make strategic transfers.

About the possible use of strategic transfer.

In the beginning of game there are for example a lot of rifles in capitol. One can now form a strategic reserve units on the base of these troops and later use strategic transfer to transport them where needed.

Also there may be a situation when a player needs to throw units from one sector to another more distant sector (for example the enemy has achieved complete surprise and breakthrough there). Using strategic transfer these troops would arrive with 80 readiness (next turn they should already have full readiness), whereas the "flying production" is not so effective. If you move it out from the HQ, next turn it has only 50 readiness. So strategic transfer may be a choice in such a situation.

Also there may be a situation when a player can not afford to reinforce all HQs equally strong. In this case a well placed strategic reserve is needed which can be then transfered where threat emerges.

< Message edited by kombrig -- 2/28/2013 6:32:05 PM >

(in reply to Rander)

Post #: 8

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 1:56:22 AM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

Maybe a two tiered HQ system where you have combat HQ's and production center HQ's ? Sounds impossible but it's an idea.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 9

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 3:13:24 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Maybe a two tiered HQ system where you have combat HQ's and production center HQ's ? Sounds impossible but it's an idea.

I use that method against the AI. I have sector Hqs that I build trains and trucks for and assign city production to.

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 10

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 6:44:38 AM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

Quoting myself:

quote:

Also there may be a situation when a player needs to throw units from one sector to another more distant sector (for example the enemy has achieved complete surprise and breakthrough there). Using strategic transfer these troops would arrive with 80 readiness (next turn they should already have full readiness), whereas the "flying production" is not so effective. If you move it out from the HQ, next turn it has only 50 readiness. So strategic transfer may be a choice in such a situation.

I have a mistake here - the flying production should have next turn of course only 20 (and not 50) readiness when moved out of a HQ, whereas a strategically transfered unit may have already full readiness by this time.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 11

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 6:46:29 AM

Rander

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Maybe a two tiered HQ system where you have combat HQ's and production center HQ's ? Sounds impossible but it's an idea.

I was thinking exactly the same.

Two types of HQ.
Combat HQ's and Administrative HQ's.

Combat HQ's can't receive production from the cities/factories.
Administrative HQ's receive the production but the troops under their command suffer comabt penalty (this HQ are only for receive and send the production, form new units, etc.).

That will be an intermediate way between current situation and the harcore production option.

Bye!
Rander.

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 12

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 7:01:06 AM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

quote:

Combat HQ's can't receive production from the cities/factories.
Administrative HQ's receive the production but the troops under their command suffer comabt penalty (this HQ are only for receive and send the production, form new units, etc.).

That will be an intermediate way between current situation and the harcore production option.

I think that arriving production should still have low readiness. Otherwise players simply start to place the production HQs near the frontline and will risk with the combat penalty.

< Message edited by kombrig -- 3/1/2013 7:02:04 AM >

(in reply to Rander)

Post #: 13

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 8:48:36 AM

Strategiusz

Posts: 236
Joined: 9/13/2008
From: Upper Silesia, Poland
Status: offline

Wow, I like many of the changes, I want to test this mod. But the problem is I really like Hard Production Mod too XD. What you think about Resaurce Mod? I like the "first level" when resources must be connected by roads with cities (or capital? don't remember).
Of course I have some comments:
1 - I think cavalry have to be better in combat than infantry. I think being in cavalry is associated with some elitism.
2 - Wow, I must test this. Definitely I like 0 recon points for artillery and transport units.
3 - Armour has already penalties in cities.
4 - It just double the 3rd point?
5 - Agreed the idea. Personally I don't like play with stone age because the research cost.
6 - Is it just the same as the 5th point?
7, 8, 9 - I don't know... I don't see the reason.
10 - I use mortars but only with armor (using "free ride" on the hood of a tank) XD
11 - Don't know... Will it make mortar "useless" again?
12 - Big change, must be tested.
13 - I miss scouts from AT:WW2. So what with Anglosaxons and Arabs now?
14 - I like HPMod and I like readiness penalty when assigning a unit to another HQ. With HPMod transport units (cargoships, trains) are needed through entire game (wiith no HPMod I usually disband trains later when all my transport is "flying" XD).
15 - OMG, huge change. Why?

< Message edited by Madlok -- 3/1/2013 9:29:22 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 14

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 9:21:32 AM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

quote:

Wow, I like many of the changes, I want to test this mod.

We are looking for a 4th player for a multiplayer test game. You are most welcome! It can't be tested against AI because the AI will fail miserably with the new readiness rules.

quote:

But the problem is I really like Hard Production Mod too XD. What you think about Resaurce Mod?

I would play them in multyplayer but the problem is that most people will find it too much a clickfest.

quote:

3 - Armour has already penalties in cities.
4 - It just double the 3rd point?

The question is, has it enough penalties? I suspect that although I have severed the penalties, still a big pack (10-20) unsupported armor can simply overrun a entrenched city. By increasing bazooka effectiveness in urban I wanted to give infantry a cheap chance at least to inflict more severe casualties to armor in such a situation.

quote:

6 - Is it just the same as the 5th point?

Partly but not exactly. PPs are also used for example for upgrading oil and raw. I didn't lower upgrade costs at all.

quote:

7, 8, 9 - I don't know... I don't see the reason.
...
15 - OMG, huge change. Why?

Simply to make the game more massive and industrial; to allow players to build all what is theoretically possible to build and actually to use them. Now when the super cavalry is gone and costs are lowered, players can maybe also concentrate on motorized infantry (with trucks), motorized artillery, bombers etc

quote:

11 - Don't know... Will it make mortar "useless" again?

Maybe you have a point. Playtest would show.

quote:

13 - I miss scouts from AT:WW2. So what with Anglosaxons and Arabs now?

The Anglosaxons and Arabs have no special ability or unit currently. However I think it does not unbalance the game much because the other nations special abilites or units are not so powerful or widely used either. Maybe the French fortification bonus is a exception.

(in reply to Strategiusz)

Post #: 15

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 9:43:06 AM

Strategiusz

Posts: 236
Joined: 9/13/2008
From: Upper Silesia, Poland
Status: offline

Anglosaxons - better strategical bombers and ships?
Arabs - blowing things? XD Really don't know, for me Arabs could despair from the game, they were not really involved in the World War II.

Down: cool idea!

< Message edited by Madlok -- 3/1/2013 9:55:45 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 16

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 9:52:28 AM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

In the current situation where Arabs and Anglosaxons does not have anything I would actually make the rest of special units and abilities random. At the beginning of each game every nation recieves a random ability/unit from a special pool. However this is done by events and I don't master this at all.

< Message edited by kombrig -- 3/1/2013 9:53:49 AM >

(in reply to Strategiusz)

Post #: 17

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 10:38:39 AM

Strategiusz

Posts: 236
Joined: 9/13/2008
From: Upper Silesia, Poland
Status: offline

I disagree with giving rear area to MG. In this game rear area is reserved for units defenseless or defenseless in close combat. And it means really deep rear. In real life tanks shoot from long distance, longer than infantry and even than MG (BTW tanks have MG onboard). Mortars have something like minimum range, can't shoot when target is too close, thats why I suppose they are rear area units, especially heavy (higher levels) mortars.

Edit: No, wait. Higher levels are not heavier, because they have the same cost and supply consuming as lower levels. So I think unit mortar is combination of light and heavy mortars, and higher levels have just better accuracy etc.

Edit 2: To make MG less dying you can give them more HP. Bazooka has more HP than infantry precisely because of special tactic that less exposure this unit to losses.

< Message edited by Madlok -- 3/1/2013 11:10:31 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 18

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 12:55:37 PM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

I have actually made that the higher level mortars cost a bit more raw but have also a bit more punch against infantry.

(in reply to Strategiusz)

Post #: 19

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/1/2013 8:36:53 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

quote:

Combat HQ's can't receive production from the cities/factories.
Administrative HQ's receive the production but the troops under their command suffer comabt penalty (this HQ are only for receive and send the production, form new units, etc.).

That will be an intermediate way between current situation and the harcore production option.

I think that arriving production should still have low readiness. Otherwise players simply start to place the production HQs near the frontline and will risk with the combat penalty.

I would make production HQ's immobile and only allowed in cities from which they source their production. That would make a producing city on the frontlines valuable in a fight but hey, didn't those Russians drive T34's right out of the factories in Stalingrad into battle ?

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 20

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/2/2013 12:29:21 AM

Rander

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

quote:

Combat HQ's can't receive production from the cities/factories.
Administrative HQ's receive the production but the troops under their command suffer comabt penalty (this HQ are only for receive and send the production, form new units, etc.).

That will be an intermediate way between current situation and the harcore production option.

I think that arriving production should still have low readiness. Otherwise players simply start to place the production HQs near the frontline and will risk with the combat penalty.

No if you put a HUGE penalty.

The Jeffrey H. idea (make the production HQ's inmobile) is good too.

Bye.

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 21

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/2/2013 3:07:25 AM

Strategiusz

Posts: 236
Joined: 9/13/2008
From: Upper Silesia, Poland
Status: offline

Immobile production HQ's = Hardcore Production Mod

< Message edited by Madlok -- 3/2/2013 3:10:34 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Rander)

Post #: 22

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/3/2013 10:59:53 AM

Strategiusz

Posts: 236
Joined: 9/13/2008
From: Upper Silesia, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

Guerillas
They don't need supplies (if readiness is lost they automatically recover it 30 points per turn). They are poor in combat even against regular rifles. Their combat value against infantry raises on next level but even level IV does not match rifles completely. All guerillas have bridge blowing points (upper levels have more) but not so much as special forces or engineers.
Guerillas are cheap. Lower levels cost less than rifles. Guerillas have 50 percent chance that a kill against them is turned into retreat. This is to simulate that they would try to avoid combat with superior forces.

Overpowered? I would build them as front line infantry instead of Rifle. Better recon (which is important now), cheaper, no supply cost, better survivability (I think), and access to blowing without calling for engineers. Maybe they are too weak in combat, I'm not sure without tests, but I feel they will be OK (infantry is cannon fodder not damage dealer anyway).

Now Leaders are cheaper, because cities produces more PP. Not only more production but additionally more PP. You can recruit more leaders and use just the best of them. I don't know it is good or bad thing.
Same with formation cost. Normally formation is worth 5 Rifles. What is its cost now? Where can I download the mod?

_____________________________

(in reply to Strategiusz)

Post #: 23

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/3/2013 12:32:19 PM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

I made some testing with level I guerillas and they were quite poor in combat. They have less hitpoints too. I believe that at least level I is hopelessly worthless on the frontlines. Although they survive (50 percent chance kill->retreat rule) they still died in rows. Maybe in the mountains they can put up some fight against regular troops.

< Message edited by kombrig -- 3/3/2013 12:42:12 PM >

(in reply to Strategiusz)

Post #: 24

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/4/2013 7:42:12 PM

all5n

Posts: 371
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Republic of Texas
Status: offline

sounds interesting. I will be willing to try it out when one of my other 3 games ends.

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 25

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/4/2013 8:18:40 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Madlok

Edit: No, wait. Higher levels are not heavier, because they have the same cost and supply consuming as lower levels. So I think unit mortar is combination of light and heavy mortars, and higher levels have just better accuracy etc.

I think mortars are too abstracted as it is. Mortars have no direct fire capability, so they are indirect and that I think defines them as rear area. The difference in smaller vs. larger is simply in the amount of explosive delivered in a fire mission. Also, the supply consumption should be proportionally higher.

The smaller mortars used by armies say <3"/75mm are really infantry weapons used in direct fire missions usually with LOS to the target. These are almost akin to rifle grenades. Part of a basic unit's carry supply, lower explosive delivery rate in time and lower supply consumption.

Which brings me to another thought.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Strategiusz)

Post #: 26

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/17/2013 2:18:47 PM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

I am toying with idea of changing the whole concept of SFT composition. Instead of weapons there can be units (about battalion size). So a SFT called "Infantry" should be considered as a unit which has small arms, MGs, support weapons (mortars and infantry gun) component already in it. Infantry (mot) has also truck component in it; Infantry (Arm) has halftrack component. Light Recon Btl represents a mix of horse recon, bicycles, motorcycles. Armored recon Btl includes armored cars and/or halftracks. Artillery Btl can be either horse drawn or motorized etc. If unit is motorized it moves better but costs more raw an consumes more oil.

So instead of producing infantry+weapons+transport one will produce functional units.

The infantry research tree should include the possibility of upgrade small arms, MGs and AT weapons (one can choose in which order). So you may have Level I infantry with upgraded AT weapons or MGs or both etc. If all three have been upgraded then you have Level II Infantry and one can then again upgrade the all three components.

For example if one researches Infantry MG upgrade, then all the infantry units which have (theoreticaly) MG component can be produced with the upgraded MGs.

I have thinking also similar changes in armor and air research tree. Here's a visual representation of the armor research:

< Message edited by kombrig -- 3/18/2013 8:54:58 AM >

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 27

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/17/2013 2:45:35 PM

kombrig

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

Here's my idea of units which can produced (only level I without any possible upgrades):

Infantry Btl I
Infantry Btl(mot) I
Infantry Btl(arm) I
Parachute I
Militia I
Guerilla I
Engineer I
Engineer (mot) I
Labour
Mountain Inf I

Artillery Btl I
Artillery Btl (mot) I
Hvy Artillery Btl I
Hvy Artillery Btl (mot) I
Med Mortar Btl
Med Mortar Btl (mot)
Hvy Mortar Btl
Hvy Mortar Btl (mot)

Anti-Tank Btl I
Anti-Tank Btl (mot) I

Lt Assault Gun Btl I
Med Assault Gun Btl I
Hvy Assault Gun Btl I

Lt Tank Destroyer Btl I
Med Tank Destroyer Btl I
Hvy Tank Destroyer Btl I

Lt Tank Btl I
Med Tank Btl I
Hvy Tank Btl I

Lt Flak Btl I
Lt Flak Btl I (mot)
Med Flak Btl I
Med Flak Btl (mot) I
Hvy Flak Btl I
Hvy Flak Btl (mot) I

Recon Btl (lt) I
Recon Btl (arm) I

Fighter Sqd I
Level Bomber Sgd I
Dive Bomber Sqd I
Strategic Bomber Sqd I
Torpedo Bomber Sqd I
Carrier Fighter Sqd I

Destroyer Group
Cruiser Group
Battleship Group
Carrier Group
Transport Ship Group
Submarine Group

Staff

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 28

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/17/2013 9:03:51 PM

Strategiusz

Posts: 236
Joined: 9/13/2008
From: Upper Silesia, Poland
Status: offline

1.
From our test mod game. Too many units on the field, too little staff limits for commanders. It force player to make many HQ very close to each other (many HQ on small area). I think it adds� nonsensical micromanagment.

< Message edited by Madlok -- 3/17/2013 9:22:15 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 29

RE: Kombrig mod - 3/17/2013 9:19:56 PM

ironduke1955

Posts: 2037
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

Not sure if I agree with these sentiment. In the Military world there are lots of HQ's. HQ's for Companies HQ's Battalion's HQ,s Regiment's HQ's and so on, So in many ways there are way fewer in ATG than there are in say HOI. More units are better they represent how a real battle front would look and feel. War in the East, Korsun Pocket, in fact all of the second world war games have a high density of units. The exception could be say the campaign in North Africa that represents supply and Logistical problems for the antagonists. So far Koms mod has a more accurate feel to it.

(in reply to Strategiusz)

Post #: 30