RE: patch update (Full Version)

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



Message

Marshall Art -> RE: patch update (1/19/2008 11:59:49 AM)

My interpretation of the rule 4 as Lebatron proposed is that it would make it harder to obtain CAM. The intention was to force the attacker to build more evenly distributed forces. As it stands the defender can prevent CAM by having more tanks than the attacker. The same would happen if rule 4 would be introduced, except replace tanks with TB. In the end the defender would require EITHER more tanks OR more TAB to prevent CAM. Which is why I am not in favour of this.

A fair solution to me would look like:

if the attacker has arm+inf+art+TB then he attains CAM, UNLESS the defender has arm+inf+art+TB AND
(EITHER a quantity of armor greater than the attacker OR a quantity of TB equal or greater than the attacker).

Thus it would be not helpful as a defender to simply build only tanks, instead both sides have to outmatch each other in at least one catagory (Tanks/TB) to prevent CAM or in both catagories to obtain CAM. New would be the requirement to have all 4 unit types as a prerequisite for both players, not just the attacker.



GKar -> RE: patch update (1/19/2008 2:18:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art

New would be the requirement to have all 4 unit types as a prerequisite for both players, not just the attacker.


Sounds good to me.



WanderingHead -> RE: patch update (1/19/2008 8:02:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
The request for mod-able stacking limits. I don't think of this as a low-level change; I believe it could be used by scenario designers to fundamentally change the way the game is played. There are a number of critical strategic locations on the map (Gibraltar, Malta, Bonin Islands, Wake, Midway, ...) which could never have served as bases/staging areas for large formations of troops or aircraft; but with the current implementation of AWD they perform that function as well as island nations like Britain or Japan. Imposing stacking limits (say 1 air unit, 1 militia, 5 supply in the case of Wake/Midway Islands) could drastically change the way the game is played. Consider this ... if there are no major bases in the Northern Pacific to support a US campaign against Japan, then historical US offensives through the Central & Southern Pacific (and Japanese defenses to oppose them)


This rationale does intrigue me. I've never liked the SPs, I've always wanted a more directly strategic mechanism.


quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
As you say; more mod-ability is almost always a good thing; it gives the game more life and helps the gaming community sustain interest for a much longer period of time, by allowing it to continue to improve.


To some extent, but it is work as well :). Some things seem like they should obviously be mod-able (all events come to mind, unit placement and levels). Rules like how movement works (which is stacking limits) don't seem so obvious.

I also see some potential for funky issues here, some of which will almost certainly introduce bugs or require very careful preemptive bug squashing.

1) OK, so you can only base 1 air unit on an island. Why can't you CAP as many nearby based air units as you want over the island? The game cannot provide CAP over friendly land, so that would simply not work, but it does not seem like it should be prohibited.

2) It is too easy to supply from transports at sea. Supply stacking limits just make islands less valuable but doesn't really hinder at sea operation.

3) what about undoing moves? You move a unit off an island, you move a unit onto the island, how do you prohibit the undo of the first move?

4) air units sortie from island, don't hit combat button yet. New air units move to the island. Now hit combat for the first, they have to return to base.

5) need to be careful to limit invading forces so they can't exceed the stack limit. Care especially for airborne.

6) all this needs to work with some moves not undoable because of combat/opfire/FOW.

I never really thought about this stuff before, but now that I am thinking of it I imagine these are the kinds of reasons 2by3 didn't do it in the first place.

Does it all mean it is not doable? No. It just means the definition of the feature needs more care than at first glance, and it is harder and more time consuming to implement well and bug free than it may seem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
quote:

back to air v naval: I'll make it unique targeting
, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean to allow the player to select priority target types? Or does it mean attacking aircraft would each select a different (unique) target? Or something else I'm missing? Thanks again.


I mean that air-v-naval targeting will be like all other non-bombardment targeting, each air unit will pick a unique target until all targets are covered, then it will be unconstrained.



SGT Rice -> RE: patch update (1/19/2008 9:33:37 PM)

I can certainly understand that problems/bugs could arise; thanks for pointing out the difficulties. My suggestions would be:

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
1) OK, so you can only base 1 air unit on an island. Why can't you CAP as many nearby based air units as you want over the island? The game cannot provide CAP over friendly land, so that would simply not work, but it does not seem like it should be prohibited.


I would say a stacking limit is a stacking limit; it applies all the time. So it would prohibit CAP over an island in excess of the stacking limit. This actually makes some sense; an AWD aircraft unit represents several hundred aircraft. When flying real missions they take up more room in the sky than they do on the ground, so you wouldn't fit unlimited numbers of planes in the air space above Wake Island. But if you're trying to protect the island from attack you don't need to ... your CAP can be flown in the sea zone(s) around the island ... no stacking limit there.

quote:

2) It is too easy to supply from transports at sea. Supply stacking limits just make islands less valuable but doesn't really hinder at sea operation.


My honorable opponent Sandeman might disagree with you here. With the new (moddable?) transport capacity rules in UV, those transport chains out in mid ocean have a lot less capacity; I bagged 4 of his Japanese trannies (reported in the Lightning tourney AAR) in the North Pacific because he couldn't pre-position supplies for his Pearl Harbor strike force. Meanwhile my Americans are doing exactly that; moving TF38 across the North Pacific with land-based fighter cover and all their supplies safely tucked away on tiny Wake and Midway. This would be a much more hazardous operation if the land-based air wasn't an option and the supplies could be sunk. I suggested that Wake/Midway could only hold one militia as a ground unit; no artillery, no flak, no infantry/para/armor. So they couldn't serve as the staging area for opposed landings against Iwo Jima, Marianas, Guam. If the Japanese puts infantry garrisons in those places then US will almost certainly need to island hop across the South Pacific to get a capable invasion force within striking distance; the only way around it would be if the Japanese are doing so poorly that the US has a free hand to pour unlimited firepower on the defenders and destroy them with suppression.

Another case where the need for stacking limits seems obvious is Malta. The Brits fought very hard to push through resupply convoys to the island during 40-42. In AWD there's no need; you can stock the place with enough supplies to hold out till Doomsday. In one recent game against Marshall Art, I socked away about 8 ground units on Malta (INF, MIL, ART, AA) a big pile of supplies and a trannie. Then in 1943 when amphib values of my trannies hit 5, voila; the Malta garrison invades and captures Southern Italy. 5 supply points is probably too generous for these tiny rocks in the ocean; 1 or 2 points might be more realistic.

quote:

3) what about undoing moves? You move a unit off an island, you move a unit onto the island, how do you prohibit the undo of the first move?


From the coding side obviously I can't say ... but a general principle of a stacking limit is that it represents a physical constraint that ALWAYS applies; so the unit that moved off the island can't return ... the game should enforce the stacking limit and shouldn't allow you to undo the move unless you undo the second.

quote:

4) air units sortie from island, don't hit combat button yet. New air units move to the island. Now hit combat for the first, they have to return to base.


Same as #3 ... the stacking limit is always enforced. So if the player makes this mistake it could cost him an aircraft; kind of like what happens if a CV gets sunk and there are two CAGs looking for a place to land. If there's no other friendly bases in range the aircraft unit is lost.

quote:

5) need to be careful to limit invading forces so they can't exceed the stack limit. Care especially for airborne.

Absolutely; the stacking limit should apply to attackers as well. But the attacker does have one powerful advantage against a small land target; the attacker can come in waves.

quote:

6) all this needs to work with some moves not undoable because of combat/opfire/FOW.


Right; in the cases you cite above you could potentially have units occupy an island behind its original inhabits and be unable to to correct the mistake; similar to what happens when units reveal hidden enemy units.

quote:

Does it all mean it is not doable? No. It just means the definition of the feature needs more care than at first glance, and it is harder and more time consuming to implement well and bug free than it may seem.


You would know much better than I. Regardless, thanks for considering it.



WanderingHead -> RE: patch update (1/19/2008 9:38:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
My interpretation of the rule 4 as Lebatron proposed is that it would make it harder to obtain CAM. The intention was to force the attacker to build more evenly distributed forces.


I don't like singling out tac in this way as an enhanced "CAM averting unit" like armor is. Armor made some sense. I feel that if the defender has no defending armor I don't think that having a couple of TBs should avert CAM. I can't see any real rationale for it.

One thing that was proposed way back when (the armor rule was applied instead of this one): treat all units exactly the same (armor is not treated specially): CAM is achieved if the attacker has greater than one-half of the unit count for each unit class than the defender.

I.e., CAM is achieved if (attacker has more than half the defender's armor) AND (attacker has more than half the defender's inf/airborne) AND (attacker has more than half the defender's artillery) AND (attacker has more than half the defender's bombers) AND (the defender does not have arm+inf+art+bomber)

This loosens the requirement on armor, but distributes it across all units. I prefer it because it is consistent across all units, and I find consistent rules more sensible and elegant. Also, any _consistent_ rule that had succeeded in forcing armor builds would by definition have already solved the very problem you are apparently now trying to solve. This is one reason consistent rules are better, they address even things you may not be thinking of at the time.



Marshall Art -> RE: patch update (1/20/2008 1:02:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art

...UNLESS the defender has arm+inf+art+TB

AND

(EITHER a quantity of armor greater than the attacker OR a quantity of TB equal or greater than the attacker).



Note I meant that the defender should always need to have all 4 unit types before the second set of criteria is checked.



Marshall Art -> RE: patch update (1/20/2008 1:24:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

I don't like singling out tac in this way as an enhanced "CAM averting unit" like armor is. Armor made some sense. I feel that if the defender has no defending armor I don't think that having a couple of TBs should avert CAM. I can't see any real rationale for it.

I.e., CAM is achieved if (attacker has more than half the defender's armor) AND (attacker has more than half the defender's inf/airborne) AND (attacker has more than half the defender's artillery) AND (attacker has more than half the defender's bombers) AND (the defender does not have arm+inf+art+bomber)



Well I feel torn because I disagree with the Armor number check, too. However if Armor is compared TBs should be, too. Why? Everybody builds Infantry and Arty because they are cheap cannon fodder. I do not like pure cannon-fodder armies with 2 Armor and one TB attached, it is boring and non-historical. So the question is: How can we reduce Inf/Arty builds and encourage players to build the more expensive and historically very important units?

Can you imagine Blitzkrieg happening with 50 Inf Divisions, Heavy artillery attachments and 1 single battalion of Type I Panzers and one squadron of Stukas? I cannot. Same for Russia with Sturmoviks and T-34's of course. Historically the number of aircraft even exceeded the numbers of tanks in the field. This should at least be somewhat mirrored in the CAM rules.

As I felt the "take all number requirements away" idea would not get enough "votes" I suggested the "compare Armor and/or TB" rule which is only one requirement of two to prevent CAM, with the "4-unit types req." being the second.

As stated earlier I believe Heavy Bombers should not count in the first place because they are not involved in ground support. Militia was excluded, even Fighters are excluded, so HBs should be, too.

Anyway with your proposal here the chance to obtain would go to virtually zero as in the fewest cases an attacker has more-of-everything. How can Germany EVER outbuild Russia on INF or Arty??

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

This loosens the requirement on armor, but distributes it across all units. I prefer it because it is consistent across all units, and I find consistent rules more sensible and elegant. Also, any _consistent_ rule that had succeeded in forcing armor builds would by definition have already solved the very problem you are apparently now trying to solve. This is one reason consistent rules are better, they address even things you may not be thinking of at the time.



I do agree that simple ideas are best, from my posts you see why I am not in the game designer/modder business [;)]

However, we are talking about tweaking an already quite complex rule system with A LOT of exceptional rules for certain units, e.g. the latest aditions involving CAGs. So while I agree with you in principle I do not buy the argument here. Tweaking a rule by adding one requirement more is not really making the whole rule more complex.




WanderingHead -> RE: patch update (1/20/2008 7:18:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
quote:


2) It is too easy to supply from transports at sea. Supply stacking limits just make islands less valuable but doesn't really hinder at sea operation.

My honorable opponent Sandeman might disagree with you here. With the new (moddable?) transport capacity rules in UV, those transport chains out in mid ocean have a lot less capacity;


Similar transport rules are in GG, but I believe that GG has a little less transport capacity penalty.

I still think refueling from sea is too easy. Its a little risky, but usually not very risky (this is one reason I'd sometimes prefer CAGs target transports instead of CVs).

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
quote:

Does it all mean it is not doable? No. It just means the definition of the feature needs more care than at first glance, and it is harder and more time consuming to implement well and bug free than it may seem.

You would know much better than I. Regardless, thanks for considering it.


Frankly, I could be sold on the feature. I think there are indeed unambiguous solutions to the problems, and I like all of the game play implications I can think of. I definitely like the more natural way of providing importance to the South Pacific/Australasia.

I'm just not sold on the work :(. So my following thinking is sort of fantasy.

If it were implemented, I would want it consistently and simply applied. It would be entirely based on transport capacity costs, without otherwise regarding unit type. So, if the limit were "20 points", that could be 4 infantry, or 2 armor, or 4 fighters, or 20 supplies, or whatever.

The consistency has implications you mightn't like. I would prefer to have it apply in a similar manner to __all__ islands. Which implies that Malta and Hawaii, for example, would be the same. But it is easier for the player, and the code, for it to be consistent.

I would think something like 20 points for all islands (surrounded by a single sea zone), plus 20 points if the island is a port. Naval units in port would not be counted in the equation.

I think a game unit is about 75,000 men, so we're talking about ~200,000 military men + some supplies on non-port islands, up to 400,000 men + supplies on port islands (I believe the population of Hawaii was ~500,000 in 1941).

The thing is, thinking this way leads to other things I would like to have, but make more complication. I would like supplying naval units at sea to be more difficult. All I can think of is that a naval unit fueled from a sea zone automatically consumes maximum fuel (5 for HFs, 4 for CVs, etc).

Then I'd also kind of like to see that a land unit cannot be supplied from an adjacent land region unless both land regions have rail. This makes Africa and Australia more difficult, without making central Australia impassible (as an aside, the only references I was able to find online to any specific Japanese plan to invade Australia in fact __did__ have the Japanese army cutting through the middle of Australia).

I sort of feel the game is close enough. Also don't want to turn off people intimidated by encroaching complexity.



SGT Rice -> RE: patch update (1/20/2008 9:53:17 AM)

I can intuitively understand how transport capacity might be easier to code than specific unit types and there's certainly some real-life rationale (i.e., if you forgo a ground garrison on your island you should be able to fit more ground crews and aircraft). But creating the same limits for all islands kind of defeats the purpose imho. Wake/Midway/Johnston/Malta are REALLY small place that should be realistically constrained to hold small handfuls of men/equipment/supplies; Formosa/Hainan/Crete/Sicily/Cyprus/Sardina are roomy places that could readily hold army-sized ground formations, dozens of airfields, etc.

I think you've already pointed out the solution though, when you mentioned giving islands with ports double the capacity. You could standardize the various islands on the map into several size classes, each with a different capacity. How about this kind of breakout:

class I islands (i.e., Wake, Midway, Johnston Atoll) = 6 transport points
class II islands (i.e., Guam, Mauritius, Bonins) = 12 transport points
class III islands (i.e., Gilberts, Marshalls, Palau) = 18 transport points
class IV islands (i.e., Hawaii, Ryukus, New Caledonia) = 24 transport points
class V island (i.e., Formosa, Sicily, Sardinia) = unlimited

As you suggested, a port on the island would double it's capacity (so Hawaii's capacity would actually be 48 transport points in my example, not counting ships).

In game play terms these classes would have very specific implications that would be easy to remember. A class I island can only hold one defensive unit AND it can only sustain one season's worth of attacks before it requires resupply. A class II island can hold two defenders and could sustain their defense for two seasons, etc. Perhaps they could even be annotated on the map with Roman numerals.

You also referred to another simple (at least I think its simple) way to make at-sea supply more difficult; to prohibit adjacent supply of ships - ships can't fuel from an adjacent land or sea zone; they either need to physically enter a port with supplies or they need a transport with supplies in the same sea zone with them. Along with the reduced transport capacities this should significantly reduce the ease with which ships can be supplied at sea.



Lebatron -> RE: patch update (1/21/2008 6:10:41 PM)

When I proposed rule 4 I didn't intend it to replace the tank as a defense requirment. In spirit it was basically what Marshall Art clarified for us.

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 rule 1 along with rule 3 or 4 is met.
2.  the defender has less armor.
3.  the defender has less TB's.

After thinking about the above it became apparent that the attacker could attain CAM in undeserving ways. Assume both sides have the full spectrum. The attacker has 3 tanks and 2 TB in the mix, the defender has 5 tanks and 1 TB in his mix. Does the attacker deserve CAM because rule 1 and 3 was met?  Of coarse not. But if I was to change the wording to "...attacker gets CAM when rule 1 along with rule 3 and 4 is met." this will make CAM a little harder to achieve. Something a few oppose. Below I think I have the answer to this problem.

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.

This solves the problem example above. The defenders total would be 6 while the attackers is 5. Clearly the attacker does not have enough of the advanced weapons to gain a clear field advantage over his enemy and thus does not deserve a combat bonus. This altenate rule is easy to remember and understand. 



Lebatron -> RE: patch update (1/21/2008 7:29:00 PM)

I would like to see stacking limits too. Would it be hard to add? Only a programmer like Brian would know. But I do have an idea what I'd like to see it look like from a modder perspective.

An example island from the region.txt file in its current form.

REGION,253,Wake Island,PLAYER_UN,United States,TER_ROUGH
MOVECOST,1
POP,0
FORT,0
CONNECT,252
SIDE,5


A possible method to give modders control over stacking limits.


REGION,253,Wake Island,PLAYER_UN,United States,TER_ROUGH
MOVECOST,1
POP,0
FORT,0
CONNECT,252
SIDE,5
UNIT,HEAVY AIR,a,b,c,d
UNIT,TAC AIR,a,b,c,d
UNIT,FIGHTER AIR,a,b,c,d
UNIT,CARRIER AIR,a,b,c,d
UNIT,MECHANIZED,a,b,c,d
UNIT,INFANTRY,a,b,c,d
UNIT,MILITIA,a,b,c,d
UNIT,PARA,a,b,c,d
UNIT,ARTILLERY,a,b,c,d
UNIT,FLAK,a,b,c,d
UNIT,SUPPLY,a,d

a=number of units
b=number of vets
c=number of elite
the a,b,c system is already in place. By adding the forth variable d, the modder can state a stacking limit here for each kind of unit. For instance, since Wake starts with no fighters, a modder could write the line
UNIT,FIGHTER AIR,0,0,0,d where d would be the max number of fighters that could stack there. This method may be the easiest for Brain to add support for stacking limits. It also gives modders more exacting control over stacking limits than imposing some kind of island class structure. However the problem I see with this basic method is that if you set Wake to hold only 1 fighter what do you do about TB's or HB's. If you put a limit of 1 in their lines, then a player could stack more on the island when the intent was to only allow 1. Clearly creating a few new category lines to represent air or land limits would be more ideal, but would be more work for Brian.

This is what I have in mind to address this shortcoming.

REGION,253,Wake Island,PLAYER_UN,United States,TER_ROUGH
MOVECOST,1
POP,0
FORT,0
AIR,a
LAND,a
CONNECT,252
SIDE,5

The new categories AIR and LAND would allow modders to limit stacking size in a generic way. 2 fighters, or 1 fighter 1 TB, etc but no more than 2 total if 2 was set as the variable. The first method would still be useful in conjunction with these extra lines. For instance the problem I stated above would not be an issue with supply so using the variable d could satisfy those who want to limit supply stacking on an island to say 20 like proposed. Another reason for using both methods is in some cases I may want to limit air to the kind that can use short runways. In other words allow a certain number of air excluding HB's from basing there. Not all islands in the Pacific could support HB's. Therefore in the line UNIT,HEAVY AIR,a,b,c,d one could make variable d=0 so that no HB's can stack there.


Brian, if using this method forced you to go through the whole region.txt file to add the lines AIR and LAND to every region that would be a lot of extra work unless you could allow their absence to mean no limit. But if that's not possible, perhaps you could add extra variable support to the POP line.
POP,0,2,2 This would mean 0 pop, 2 land unit stacking limit, 2 air unit stacking limit.
But in the end I would rather have the separate lines AIR and LAND. If you need a volunteer to help go through the data files and add these extra lines I would be willing. I'm sure some others would gladly volunteer too.



Lebatron -> RE: patch update (1/21/2008 7:37:06 PM)

How to deal with stacking during combat.

Without going overboard in complexity how about just letting the stacking limits be ignored during attacks. If the attacker wins, whatever land forces that can't fit just retreat back to where they came from without damage. Air always retreats so that's not an issue.



GKar -> RE: patch update (1/21/2008 7:51:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

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.

I really like this proposition. It has a certain logic to it and it isn't much more complicated than the current one.

(Note that HB should be taken out of the mix either way, if you ask me. But I think there's consensus about that already.)



GKar -> RE: patch update (1/21/2008 7:57:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

I would like to see stacking limits too. Would it be hard to add? Only a programmer like Brian would know. But I do have an idea what I'd like to see it look like from a modder perspective.

I'd prefer just one limit in line with the transport weights that are already in the game. Just like someone proposed earlier: e.g. a limit of 20 which means two tanks or two infs, one fighter and 5 supplies and so on. This limit could be defined for every province in the scenario files, the only problem is that the player would have to be informed about these values somehow.



Marshall Art -> RE: patch update (1/21/2008 8:47:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GKar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

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.

I really like this proposition. It has a certain logic to it and it isn't much more complicated than the current one.

(Note that HB should be taken out of the mix either way, if you ask me. But I think there's consensus about that already.)


I fully agree with the above said. This also gives some variability whether you have more tanks or more TBs in one particular location, sort of weakening the "hard" Armour comparison rule. I am glad the defender must have the full spectrum too, which allows the Allies to get CAM in the late war stages, when German TBs become rare.



SGT Rice -> RE: patch update (1/21/2008 10:52:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

I would like to see stacking limits too. Would it be hard to add? Only a programmer like Brian would know. But I do have an idea what I'd like to see it look like from a modder perspective.

An example island from the region.txt file in its current form.



I agree with Jesse's proposal here; it would be vastly preferable to limit stacking by unit type (FTR/HB/LB/etc.) and unit classes (AIR/LAND/NAVAL) if at all possible.

quote:

How to deal with stacking during combat.

Without going overboard in complexity how about just letting the stacking limits be ignored during attacks. If the attacker wins, whatever land forces that can't fit just retreat back to where they came from without damage. Air always retreats so that's not an issue.


But I disagree here. If for example Malta or Gibraltar were garrisoned by a single infantry (perhaps after air attacks have damaged any defending artillery/flak/air) then the Germans could guarantee their capture simply by swamping them with a militia invasion force (plenty of Italian cannon fodder lying around). I would maintain that the attackers should be constrained by the same stacking limits as the defenders for the same reasons; there simply isn't enough space for unlimited attackers to get within range of the island all at the same time.




WanderingHead -> RE: patch update (1/27/2008 11:14:03 PM)

I've updated the plan-of-record in the opening post of this thread.

I'm intrigued by the impact of stacking limits, and I fully agree that tech events should be mod-able. But these are a large amount of work. I think it makes more sense to do the smaller/easier changes first then release it. Then these other things may or may not be be added (for stacking limits it means "mod-able", since it won't go in the original scenarios). If they do get added, it will be after a rather long time, depending how much enthusiasm I develop for it and how much time I find for it.

It also depends what Joel thinks of it all.



SGT Rice -> RE: patch update (1/28/2008 5:12:45 PM)

quote:

on the list - to do
improve air targeting of naval, to pick unique targets.

remove CAG double team of CVs


I guess I'm a minority on this topic; but I'd like to raise the point one last time ... how do you even begin to simulate what happened historically without the CAG double team rule? Take the Battle of Midway as an example ... the US CAGs had a vast armada of Japanese vessels to choose from; why did they only target Japanese CVs until there were none left to target? Ditto for the Battle of the Coral Sea, Battle of the Philippine Sea (aka Marianas Turkey Shoot), and all the carrier battles in the Solomons. If other aircraft spread themselves across different target types ok, but I would strongly suggest that CAGs should remain as they are.



GKar -> RE: patch update (1/28/2008 8:32:39 PM)

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?



rjh1971 -> RE: patch update (1/28/2008 10:48:19 PM)

IMO flat tops were priority targets, no air attack would have aimed at BBs if they had a CV in sight.



christian brown -> RE: patch update (1/29/2008 7:52:05 AM)

Some of the comments above seem to have been written without having read the arguments in this stream.
To reiterate:
CVs will remain first target choice for CAGs, weighted hugely in their favor.

The essence of the rule change is this:
CAGs will choose unique targets, starting with CVs, then BBs and so on, just as before. The change is that 2 or more CAGs will be less likely to double CVs since each air unit will select it's own individual target.

Here is an example:
6 CAGs attack 2 CVs, a BB, an LF and a TF.
2 CAGs will almost certainly match up with the 2 CVs, one for one. The next CAG will (probably) choose the BB as its target. The next CAG selects a new target, probably the LF. The next CAG takes on whatever unit has not already been attacked = the TF. The 6th CAG repeats the process, targeting a defender by weight (CV, BB, LF, TF, SF.) Since all units have already been targeted once, it is possible that this last CAG could target any of the other units but will usually go after one of the CVs for a double up.

The purpose of the rule change as I understand it:
Giving incentive to a player to commit all air assets to one battle (using 3 air units against 2 TFs can and often does result in a single TF being targeted 3 times, thereby allowing the second TF off the hook.) A "smart" AWD player would currently send their air in one at a time to avoid double up attacks and wasting air assets. This is counter-intuitive and should be dissuaded.

Giving a purpose to protecting CVs with a screening fleet.

There are other (IMO) less important issues at stake, but these seem to be the main ones.

The bottom line is that this rule change will result in more damaged as opposed to destroyed fleets, CVs in particular.



Forwarn45 -> RE: patch update (1/29/2008 6:24:28 PM)

What Christian said. I'd also emphasize you'd still see quite a few carriers sunk. With torpedo and anti-ship improvements to CAG, it's not unusual for both to hit (or to get one autohit) - resulting in a sinking.



Lebatron -> RE: patch update (1/29/2008 7:09:01 PM)

Thanks Chris for helping the case[:)]



GKar -> RE: patch update (1/29/2008 10:14:16 PM)

I see. Sounds like a reasonable change then.



SGT Rice -> RE: patch update (1/30/2008 1:41:03 AM)

I thought MrQ summed up the gameplay problems pretty nicely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet

I have no strong opinion on this subject except I would like to see carriers not be forced to stack up with other carriers in order to avoid gang bang attacks from a thousand miles away.

But even just removing the auto CAG double-up vs Carrier will make Carriers much more survivable and will lead to more damaged Carreir Fleets than destroyed which I think would be better. Its that second Cag attack vs Carrier with reduced evasion and possible damage that dooms them most of the time. Meanwhile there are other fleets in the group not even getting targeted. Realistic, probably. Good for cool global strategy game? I would prefer to see high value assets more distributed in the theater/s.


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 don't think this problem is easily solvable; isn't it an inevitable consequence of having an IGO-UGO movement system with no stacking limits?

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.

Here's a gamey situation that could easily arise with the proposed unique targeting rules. It's late 43, the US is starting to move across the Pacific. A Japanese force of 4 CV/CAGs is in Truk with a light surface escort. The US has 2 CV/CAGs within striking distance with more on the way. US CAGs have an edge in air-air/evasion ratings; both sides have raised CV evasion ratings. What does the US do? Answer: He goes straight at the Japanese CV group, "defending" his own carriers with as many transports as he can spare. Faced with 2:1 odds against him, the WA player can basically guarantee 2 strikes on Japanese CVs while only exposing himself to 2 strikes against his own. If he has enough extra trannies (or BBs or DDs) lying around he might divert three or even all four of the Japanese counterstrikes onto other targets.

Historically the US fleet commanders DID surround their CVs with as many WARSHIPS as they could. But this did not result in Japanese carrier pilots diverting bomb runs onto lots of BBs, CAs, & DDs. It resulted in huge concentrations of flak. This suggests a different game mechanism than dispersing CAG strikes across an enemy fleet; it suggests allowing multiple defending ships to target incoming aircraft with their flak. I would suggest that a more realistic solution to the problems of protecting CVs might be to resolve AA combat at sea similar to the way its resolved on land. Treat any ships with AA ratings >3 as if they were flak units. Let the ships with the highest AA ratings (typically BBs) always shoot first and give additional modifiers if the defending 'flak' ships outnumber the attackers, just like its resolved on land.




Lebatron -> RE: patch update (1/30/2008 4:14:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

Here's a gamey situation that could easily arise with the proposed unique targeting rules. It's late 43, the US is starting to move across the Pacific. A Japanese force of 4 CV/CAGs is in Truk with a light surface escort. The US has 2 CV/CAGs within striking distance with more on the way. US CAGs have an edge in air-air/evasion ratings; both sides have raised CV evasion ratings. What does the US do? Answer: He goes straight at the Japanese CV group, "defending" his own carriers with as many transports as he can spare. Faced with 2:1 odds against him, the WA player can basically guarantee 2 strikes on Japanese CVs while only exposing himself to 2 strikes against his own. If he has enough extra trannies (or BBs or DDs) lying around he might divert three or even all four of the Japanese counterstrikes onto other targets.



A good point. However this gamey exploit could be handled by excluding trannies. If CAG's could be programmed to select one unique target down the line and loop back to CV's once trannies came up this would solve that problem. Perhaps it's as simple as entering 0 for the trannies weight %.



Lebatron -> RE: patch update (1/30/2008 4:33:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

Historically the US fleet commanders DID surround their CVs with as many WARSHIPS as they could. But this did not result in Japanese carrier pilots diverting bomb runs onto lots of BBs, CAs, & DDs. It resulted in huge concentrations of flak. This suggests a different game mechanism than dispersing CAG strikes across an enemy fleet; it suggests allowing multiple defending ships to target incoming aircraft with their flak. I would suggest that a more realistic solution to the problems of protecting CVs might be to resolve AA combat at sea similar to the way its resolved on land. Treat any ships with AA ratings >3 as if they were flak units. Let the ships with the highest AA ratings (typically BBs) always shoot first and give additional modifiers if the defending 'flak' ships outnumber the attackers, just like its resolved on land.



At first glance this seems like an excellent idea. In particular, I would like to see HF's act like land flak and get 2 shots, plus allow them to receive AA support bonus from other HF's, LF's, and CV's when they have no target of their own.

Even with this good idea, I still support adding unique targeting.

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.




Lebatron -> RE: patch update (1/30/2008 6:02:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

on the list - maybe
  • more robust file access routines to avoid save-incompatible caused crashes ... ? it is worth doing? This would (ironically) break save compatibility, because I would need to add a new version field to the save files.
  • change CAM for bombers: remove HB.


Aren't we all in agreement to remove HB's from CAM?




Lebatron -> RE: patch update (1/30/2008 6:20:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

unlikely due to difficulty or lack of unanimity
  • change CAM for bombers: require more attacking TB than defending TB (making CAM easier or harder, depending on precise definition)
  • change date displayed in View Mode after end of player turn, to reflect completed turn instead of next turn.
  • change German snorkel tech even to 1942.
  • make all tech events mod-able
  • stacking limits for islands




The above statement about CAM does not reflect the current consensus. As stated I would not support the change either, because of the problems pointed out by myself and others, but my follow up alternate suggestion received complete support. At least no problems with it have been pointed out. I like it because it's actually simpler to understand than the current CAM rule, and it more accurately reflects when an attacker deserves CAM. Here it is again.

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.

Moving the snorkel event to 1942 did not achieve a high level of support so I can see why its unlikely to be changed, but there was support for the compromise. That is to give the snorkel event the large point bump instead of the small one it now receives. Also a related topic was the increase in actual reward for the tech events. Here is what I said in another thread "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. This second option is closely related to MA's suggested amount but without using a d6." Are there any that think it would be a bad change?

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?




Marshall Art -> RE: patch update (1/30/2008 8:49:01 PM)


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.




Does this mean that only for CAG the trannies have avalue of 0 but still 1 for all other aircraft? Because a general rule for all aircraft would not make sense at all. In fact, I would even propose to give DDs a lower or identical at best probability as trannies, when attacked by other aircraft. For instance in Europe German bombers cared less about DDs but went straight for the trannies if they could.

I like the "Naval AA" idea very much as it really beefs up anti-air tactics at sea. There was little use for BBs and their AA capabilities so far, but all powers used BBs and Cruisers as AA defense for carriers.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375