Not to be too critical but....

Not to be too critical but.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold

Message

Nick R -> Not to be too critical but.... (3/26/2008 4:29:33 PM)
Okay, I have some observations and feedback regarding the game. 1. It seems too scripted. You begin already at war with Poland, France and England. Both the Soviets and the US join the war at predetermined points. Its pretty much a foregone conclusion at that point. It’s like letting someone know the end of the story and telling them now read the book, not very interesting. 2. After playing the game and trying different things I found some disturbing problems. After taking over England (I should add France here too), they still retain all their production and manpower and the only thing Germany gets is like 20 more production and no increase in manpower. That can’t be right. 3. Leadership doesn’t seem worth it. Buying a General for 125 production points doesn’t seem worth it. I would suggest that the Generals be able to form Armies from several Corps and provide them all the benefit. Perhaps then they would be useful. 4. I would have liked a more “open” style similar to the game “Making History” which I would classify as a simulation of WWII as opposed to CEAW that I would classify as a reenactment. Perhaps there is some mod or some option that I don’t know about that fixes these issues but without something to change the scripted game play its not a very enjoyable or playable game in my opinion.

IainMcNeil -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/26/2008 5:19:14 PM)
Just to clarify - the entry dates vary, but they are always going to be aroudn the time they really occured. Without this you woudl need an entire diplomacy system to model war entry and this is not what CEAW is about. It is intentional that a conquering nation gains no man power from subject nations. In reality a very small proportion of people fought for their conqueror. Leaders are very powerful if used correctly. On the harder settings you'll find you need to use them to survive. CEAW leaves lots of options open without making it completely free form. We felt a free form game would not have been WW2, but something like a game of Civilization. These are all design decisions and not bugs :)

Nick R -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/26/2008 5:38:49 PM)
Iain, Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately, and as I stated not being too critical, for me it makes the game a historical reenactment, one in which I know the ending without it would seem a lot of variation. I still would like to know the justification for England keeping its manpower and production capacity after they have been conquered? Also why doesn’t that production capacity become Germany’s?

Harrybanana -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/26/2008 6:38:39 PM)
Nick, It's funny how 2 different people will play the same game and have completely different reactions. I have some criticisms of the game as well but they are different then yours. I have no problem with the game starting with Germany already at war with Poland, france and England. I would not call this game a reenactment of WWII becasue you don't have to "follow the script" if you don't want to. Germany can invade England, or Spain or Sweden or make a concerted effort for the Middle east oil fields. It can choose not to invade Yugoslavia or Greece. The Allies can invade France in 42 or 43 or not at all. Not only do you have a wide selection of strategy you also have a wide selection in what type of units to build. I played some HOI 2 and the criticism of that game is that often WWII would end up being between the Allies and Russia rather than the Allies and Germany. Maybe you prefer that variety, but for myself I want to refight WWII as Allies vs the Axis. I agree with your criticisms about the Commanders. I'm not sure what the rational of making them so expensive was. What are they baseball players or movie stars or something? They can be useful, but historically all the Commanders listed served at one time or another; but I've yet to play a game where all of them are used. Why not make them cheap for everybody. The game is called "Commander Eurpoe at War" isn't it. I have no problem with Germany only acquiring half of a conquered nations production. Conquered workers were actually not very productive. As for the UK don't forget that it's production represents not only that of the UK itself, but also Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, etc.

firepowerjohan -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/26/2008 6:48:23 PM)
It is correct, you conquer someones land in CEAW then you seize their oil and pp production but not their manpower. Furthermoe production is halved in conquered countries to not allow unrealistic super economies. If UK loses England then despite them having a lot of manpower, what will be the limiting factor for them is their industry captured by Axis and so manpower would not make any difference, UK is clearly weakened as soon as they lose the British Islands IMO. Commanders are very powerful in game and the cost of them could represent the HQ+leader role. In some other games you can build HQ units separately and they cost a lot of money but here we make the HQ's invisible from map so it is roughly the same thing.

Nick R -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/26/2008 7:41:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan Commanders are very powerful in game and the cost of them could represent the HQ+leader role. In some other games you can build HQ units separately and they cost a lot of money but here we make the HQ's invisible from map so it is roughly the same thing. Johan, I dont see how they are very powerful. Based on my game play, they have minimal effectiveness. If they could provide their "expertise" to several units in the area to represent an Army Group, which is what they did in real life not Corps, then they would indeed be valuable. As for the production and manpower, I can see your point on the production, however I dont see where I have received half of their production. It looks like I gained perhaps 20 or so points. As for the manpower, England should loose lets say at least half of its manpower I would think as well. It would be nice to see a mod that would allow you to begin earlier than 39 and to not be at war I just dont know how to do that. Harry, I do appreciate your perspective but I think you are "forced" to follow the script as its the only one that makes sense, at least to me, unless you have come up with a way to defeat the allies by conquering the Middle East, which I would be very interested in seeing. As for the workers, I meant that after conquering England, they still retain their manpower, whcih should not be the case. I was not looking for them to add much to Germany's manpower pool.

firepowerjohan -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/26/2008 7:54:05 PM)
Commanders do provide several units increased max effectiveness. You wont see it right away once you deploy the leader since Max Effectiveness and Current Effectiveness is not the same thing. Deploy Manstein around French front lines and you will soon see all land units within 8 hexes range having 16% higher effectiveness and also in Combat it will give grdatt +1 for the unit atttached to. Especially for Axis, this is a good way of getting more bang for the bucks since your units get a little better while it do not cost you any extra manpower or oil.

Nick R -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/26/2008 8:07:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan Commanders do provide several units increased max effectiveness. You wont see it right away once you deploy the leader since Max Effectiveness and Current Effectiveness is not the same thing. Deploy Manstein around French front lines and you will soon see all land units within 8 hexes range having 16% higher effectiveness and also in Combat it will give grdatt +1 for the unit atttached to. Especially for Axis, this is a good way of getting more bang for the bucks since your units get a little better while it do not cost you any extra manpower or oil. Johan, Sorry I wasnt fully aware of this. I did go to the manual and it does say in their Leadership range, so can you tell us what the range is? Do you know of a way to do a mod that would allow Germany not to be at war and to start earlier?

firepowerjohan -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/26/2008 8:59:29 PM)
Yes, you can use the editor for making mods that start earlier than 1939 [:)] There are modding communities that can help you out since making maps and scenarios is not too easy.

Nick R -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/26/2008 9:05:21 PM)
Is there an editor that you would suggest I use?

Tac2i -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/26/2008 9:20:42 PM)
You can download the CEaW editor here: http://slitherine.com/files/ceaw/editor/ceaw_editor_v1.04.exe According to a post on the Slitherine forums, the 1.04 editor works with the game patched to 1.06. quote: ORIGINAL: Nick R Is there an editor that you would suggest I use?

alaric318 -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/27/2008 8:35:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nick R Johan, Sorry I wasnt fully aware of this. I did go to the manual and it does say in their Leadership range, so can you tell us what the range is? commanders default range is 8 hexes from where his parent "attached" unit is, so you can make for sure "under command cover" all east front with maybe 3/4 germans generals, anyway, Johan already answer this question, best regards, Murat30. is difficult to make a game to reach all people concept of perfection, CEAW is a great game, the best notice for me this year is that slitherine already is working, nothing the less than in a CEAW for napoleonics, that maybe can come on June :) personally, the past year, the game that more fun have take on me is CEAW, both making mods and playing it, easy to mod files, do help to it, regards. mods... follow these links at your discrection... http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1693337 and, mine... (at the moment only for 1.04, my mods)... http://hosted.filefront.com/Alarick global war is better, have included japanase forces based on europe, only european theater however, enjoy!

Harrybanana -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/27/2008 7:04:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan Commanders are very powerful in game and the cost of them could represent the HQ+leader role. In some other games you can build HQ units separately and they cost a lot of money but here we make the HQ's invisible from map so it is roughly the same thing. I'm not disputing that Commanders are powerful, what I am disputing is their cost. If the cost is supposed to represent the entire HQ then why does Manstein cost more than say Kluge? Asuming the HQs are the same size why does one cost more than another? And why even bother including all those French and Italian HQs when the most that ever get used are one or two and so many are the same. And why do none of the scenarios start with any of the commanders deployed? Did the Germans not have any HQs on the Russian front in June 41, was Rommel not in Afrika? My point being that in most games you are only going to be able to afford 3 or 4 HQs as the Germans and about 4 or 5 as the Allies. Sure you can build more but it is at the cost of your other units. And I don't really think the cost of an HQ Unit, even an Army Group, costs as much as 4 armored divisions. I suppose if the cost were significantly reduced everyone would build several leaders, but I don't see the harm in that. Except I don't know if Leader effects overlap. In other words if a unit is within the leadership range of two leaders does it receive the effectiveness increase benefits from both leaders or just the higher leader?

Nick R -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/27/2008 7:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana quote: ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan Commanders are very powerful in game and the cost of them could represent the HQ+leader role. In some other games you can build HQ units separately and they cost a lot of money but here we make the HQ's invisible from map so it is roughly the same thing. I'm not disputing that Commanders are powerful, what I am disputing is their cost. If the cost is supposed to represent the entire HQ then why does Manstein cost more than say Kluge? Asuming the HQs are the same size why does one cost more than another? And why even bother including all those French and Italian HQs when the most that ever get used are one or two and so many are the same. And why do none of the scenarios start with any of the commanders deployed? Did the Germans not have any HQs on the Russian front in June 41, was Rommel not in Afrika? My point being that in most games you are only going to be able to afford 3 or 4 HQs as the Germans and about 4 or 5 as the Allies. Sure you can build more but it is at the cost of your other units. And I don't really think the cost of an HQ Unit, even an Army Group, costs as much as 4 armored divisions. I suppose if the cost were significantly reduced everyone would build several leaders, but I don't see the harm in that. Except I don't know if Leader effects overlap. In other words if a unit is within the leadership range of two leaders does it receive the effectiveness increase benefits from both leaders or just the higher leader? Johan / Harry/ Anyone, Can the costs be modded? Not being even a novice at modding I dont want to assume that it can or cannot be done. I would certainly like to see a mod that made them say the price of a garrison and see what the impact is and adjust from there. Perhaps even, as Harry suggested deploy say 1 or 2 at the begining.

Nick R -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/27/2008 7:25:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Murat30 quote: ORIGINAL: Nick R Johan, Sorry I wasnt fully aware of this. I did go to the manual and it does say in their Leadership range, so can you tell us what the range is? commanders default range is 8 hexes from where his parent "attached" unit is, so you can make for sure "under command cover" all east front with maybe 3/4 germans generals, anyway, Johan already answer this question, best regards, Murat30. is difficult to make a game to reach all people concept of perfection, CEAW is a great game, the best notice for me this year is that slitherine already is working, nothing the less than in a CEAW for napoleonics, that maybe can come on June :) personally, the past year, the game that more fun have take on me is CEAW, both making mods and playing it, easy to mod files, do help to it, regards. mods... follow these links at your discrection... http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1693337 and, mine... (at the moment only for 1.04, my mods)... http://hosted.filefront.com/Alarick global war is better, have included japanase forces based on europe, only european theater however, enjoy! Murat, I agree it is very difficult if not impossible to make everyone happy. Johan did certainly clairify several things for me that help me appreciate the game more. As for modding the game, is there a way to mod the prices of units? If so can you give me any advice on modding or how to mod? Thanks,

Harrybanana -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/27/2008 10:58:34 PM)
[/quote] Johan / Harry/ Anyone, Can the costs be modded? Not being even a novice at modding I dont want to assume that it can or cannot be done. I would certainly like to see a mod that made them say the price of a garrison and see what the impact is and adjust from there. Perhaps even, as Harry suggested deploy say 1 or 2 at the begining. [/quote] I'm not very familar with modding either, but I do know that other mods have altered the unit costs so I assume this can be done. I'm not sure if you can deploy Commanders at the beginning of a scenario or not though. I would have thought if you could some of the scenarios would have started with some Commanders already deployed.

alaric318 -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/27/2008 11:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana Johan / Harry/ Anyone, Can the costs be modded? Not being even a novice at modding I dont want to assume that it can or cannot be done. I would certainly like to see a mod that made them say the price of a garrison and see what the impact is and adjust from there. Perhaps even, as Harry suggested deploy say 1 or 2 at the begining. I'm not very familar with modding either, but I do know that other mods have altered the unit costs so I assume this can be done. I'm not sure if you can deploy Commanders at the beginning of a scenario or not though. I would have thought if you could some of the scenarios would have started with some Commanders already deployed. greetings, as far as i know you cannot deploy pre-start generals. for mod units cost there are on /CEAW/data/ directory two files, i am speaking of 1.04, unit.txt and unit_eng.txt, i am not sure what the file to mod, so, for the better chance of success edit both files at wished costs for units, it is not difficult, only mind about the costs that you see on the game and then is easy to understand what numbers to change on the files, hope it helps, best regards, murat30. Post-Edit... Remember to backup the original files before modding to be capable to return at choice to unmodded gameplay, i always have two installs, one unmodded and other with the latest version of modded files. regards.

Nick R -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/27/2008 11:27:30 PM)
Okay, looks like the file to edit is leader.txt and leader_eng.txt. Not sure what the difference is, perhaps Johan can tell us???? Hmm, I also noticed that some generals dont appear to have a cost.

alaric318 -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/28/2008 2:03:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nick R Okay, looks like the file to edit is leader.txt and leader_eng.txt. Not sure what the difference is, perhaps Johan can tell us???? Hmm, I also noticed that some generals dont appear to have a cost. greetings, take care that Commander costs are somewhat hardcoded, you can change/mod the Commander's attributes and reduce/increase cost, adding attack and defense change Commander's costs, so onwards for leadership attribute, attack is the more expensive, then is defense and then leadership, you can make cheap commanders, increasing attack and defense can be expensive as first view but an unit with a high attack/defense commander can be dangerous and worth the cost, remember to backup the files to change on other directory or make two installs, not install two times, only copy and paste the directory and edit one of them, with hardcoded i was wanting to mean that aside you see a "cost" attribute in leader.txt, aside what you set there, it do not change on any way the cost of the commander, only way is to change, leadership, attack and defense, hope it helps, best regards, murat30.

Harrybanana -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/28/2008 3:01:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Murat30 greetings, take care that Commander costs are somewhat hardcoded, you can change/mod the Commander's attributes and reduce/increase cost, adding attack and defense change Commander's costs, so onwards for leadership attribute, attack is the more expensive, then is defense and then leadership, you can make cheap commanders, increasing attack and defense can be expensive as first view but an unit with a high attack/defense commander can be dangerous and worth the cost, remember to backup the files to change on other directory or make two installs, not install two times, only copy and paste the directory and edit one of them, with hardcoded i was wanting to mean that aside you see a "cost" attribute in leader.txt, aside what you set there, it do not change on any way the cost of the commander, only way is to change, leadership, attack and defense, hope it helps, best regards, murat30. If I understand you correctly you can not mod the game to have a good commander cost less as the commander cost is hardcoded in and is directly related to how good the commander is. That is too bad. I think it would have been fun to try a game where all commanders were inexpensive to see what effect this had on the game. Again I really don't understand what the historical justification was for having commanders cost so much in terms of production points. Yes, I know they may be worth the cost, but that is not my point. One of the biggest advantages the Germans had in the early part of the war is that their generals and HQs (while costing the same amount to train and equip as the Allied generals and HQs) were generally superior. This, imho, is not properly reflected in the game. Yes the Germans have the superior commanders, but they also cost more than the inferior Allied Generals, and that is what I don't agree with.

Nick R -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/28/2008 5:17:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana quote: ORIGINAL: Murat30 greetings, take care that Commander costs are somewhat hardcoded, you can change/mod the Commander's attributes and reduce/increase cost, adding attack and defense change Commander's costs, so onwards for leadership attribute, attack is the more expensive, then is defense and then leadership, you can make cheap commanders, increasing attack and defense can be expensive as first view but an unit with a high attack/defense commander can be dangerous and worth the cost, remember to backup the files to change on other directory or make two installs, not install two times, only copy and paste the directory and edit one of them, with hardcoded i was wanting to mean that aside you see a "cost" attribute in leader.txt, aside what you set there, it do not change on any way the cost of the commander, only way is to change, leadership, attack and defense, hope it helps, best regards, murat30. If I understand you correctly you can not mod the game to have a good commander cost less as the commander cost is hardcoded in and is directly related to how good the commander is. That is too bad. I think it would have been fun to try a game where all commanders were inexpensive to see what effect this had on the game. Again I really don't understand what the historical justification was for having commanders cost so much in terms of production points. Yes, I know they may be worth the cost, but that is not my point. One of the biggest advantages the Germans had in the early part of the war is that their generals and HQs (while costing the same amount to train and equip as the Allied generals and HQs) were generally superior. This, imho, is not properly reflected in the game. Yes the Germans have the superior commanders, but they also cost more than the inferior Allied Generals, and that is what I don't agree with. Harry, Thats what I understood as well. I even changed the cost and no affect in the game. Perhaps Johan can guide / assist us with this and let us know how we might adjust the costs as I agree with you and dont reallt see the reason for the super high costs.

alaric318 -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/28/2008 6:12:28 AM)
well, escuses for my poor english, it is not my native languaje and maybe i do not have make correct explanation, before, in leaders.txt "tag" with cost is hardcoded and cannot be modified, but all other three Commander's parameters, leadership, attack and defense can be modded and reduced, so, reducing his cost, reducing all commanders by 2/3 points in leadership will lead to cheaper commander, as an example. remember, as Johan said before, each leadership point gives units in range and the unit attached a +2 readiness overall bonus, is not cumulative, only better commander in range affect troops, but can be greatly decisive on combat, attack attribute is the most expensive, so, if you remove some attack point you will have much cheaper commanders, comming behind attack is defense attribute, but in add can say that for the better and my oppinion is better to allow sides to have both options, i mean, some powerfull commanders with higher attributes and some cheaper commanders that can be recruited if war is going hard, modding the game you can make indeed commanders more cheap, even the powerfull ones, as you can increase production and at some point you have enough troops, however, recruiting all commanders will be the most expensive and you do not need them all for cover all units, default effective range is 8 hexes, you can in this radius affect with a commander very much land and air units, so, the cost for the most cases worth the production points that the commander cost, this about the leadership bonus, attached unit will enjoy attack and/or defense bonus that in example trough research cost time and production points to achieve, in example the armor units with commander can be dangerous enemies, and a commander leading an armor unit against an enemy armor unit, the commander can make the difference between victory and defeat, units with commander are the best "shock" troops available, and the better siege troops available, so i think obviously that they worth the cost, i am not sure what file to edit, better edit both in the modded directory or files, leader.txt and leader_eng.txt, if you edit leadership, attack and defense the cost will be reduced automatically once on the game start, best regards, murat30.

Nick R -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/28/2008 4:14:46 PM)
Murat, No worries about your english. I apprecaite the assistance. Unfortunately I dont think getting reduced leaders at a lower cost makes it better. I am still having difficulty getting past the scripted nature of the game with very limited "what if" possibilities.

Harrybanana -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/28/2008 9:34:02 PM)
Murat, Your English was fine Murat. I understood what you were saying. I'm not so sure you understand what I am saying though. I agree that Commanders are important. But just because they are important and valuable doesn't mean they should be expensive and I don't think the "good" commanders should cost any more (or at least not much more) than the "Bad" commanders. If it was up to me I would: 1. Make all commanders cost the same (say 10 to 20pp); 2. Limit their effective range to 3 or 4 hexes (thus requiring more of them); 3. Have both sides start the War with their historical army (not corp or division)commanders already deployed; 4. Have it so that all other commanders are chosen randomly and with their ratings hidden (so you don't know if you are getting a Paulus or a Rommel); and once they have been in combat for a few turns you learn their true ratings.

Nick R -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/28/2008 9:41:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana Murat, Your English was fine Murat. I understood what you were saying. I'm not so sure you understand what I am saying though. I agree that Commanders are important. But just because they are important and valuable doesn't mean they should be expensive and I don't think the "good" commanders should cost any more (or at least not much more) than the "Bad" commanders. If it was up to me I would: 1. Make all commanders cost the same (say 10 to 20pp); 2. Limit their effective range to 3 or 4 hexes (thus requiring more of them); 3. Have both sides start the War with their historical army (not corp or division)commanders already deployed; 4. Have it so that all other commanders are chosen randomly and with their ratings hidden (so you don't know if you are getting a Paulus or a Rommel); and once they have been in combat for a few turns you learn their true ratings. Harry, You are spot on! I have to say even with the clairifications by Johan on several items, and I do appreciate his help, I keep coming back to the "feeling" of how scripted the game play is. I will be honest, Im going to take a closer look at SC2 as it seems others here in the forum have suggested and see how it stacks up.

Harrybanana -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/28/2008 9:48:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nick R Murat, No worries about your english. I apprecaite the assistance. Unfortunately I dont think getting reduced leaders at a lower cost makes it better. I am still having difficulty getting past the scripted nature of the game with very limited "what if" possibilities. Nick, I'm not sure what the "what if" possibilities are you want to explore. Are you talking about something really open ended where, for example, Germany could choose to not invade Poland or the Allies at all, but instead invade Yugoslavia or something. Keep in mind that the game is designed with only 2 players, so at some point they are going to have to go to war (well or else it ain't much of a game). Do you want it to be open ended for everyone so that, for example, Russia can declare war on the Axis in 1939 or 40? Could you elaborate a little? One thing I think I do agree with you on is Russia declaring War in 1941. IMHO, but for Germany declaring War on Russia I don't think Stalin would have declared war on the Axis until 1943 at the earliest, if at all. However, I can see this as a necessity of the game. We all know now that the biggest mistake Germany made was declaring war on Russia at all, at least prior to knocking the Uk out of the War. But if the option is given in the game to Germany to not DOW Russia they would win every single game.

Nick R -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (3/28/2008 10:14:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana quote: ORIGINAL: Nick R Murat, No worries about your english. I apprecaite the assistance. Unfortunately I dont think getting reduced leaders at a lower cost makes it better. I am still having difficulty getting past the scripted nature of the game with very limited "what if" possibilities. Nick, I'm not sure what the "what if" possibilities are you want to explore. Are you talking about something really open ended where, for example, Germany could choose to not invade Poland or the Allies at all, but instead invade Yugoslavia or something. Keep in mind that the game is designed with only 2 players, so at some point they are going to have to go to war (well or else it ain't much of a game). Do you want it to be open ended for everyone so that, for example, Russia can declare war on the Axis in 1939 or 40? Could you elaborate a little? One thing I think I do agree with you on is Russia declaring War in 1941. IMHO, but for Germany declaring War on Russia I don't think Stalin would have declared war on the Axis until 1943 at the earliest, if at all. However, I can see this as a necessity of the game. We all know now that the biggest mistake Germany made was declaring war on Russia at all, at least prior to knocking the Uk out of the War. But if the option is given in the game to Germany to not DOW Russia they would win every single game. Harry, From my perspective that game is great as a historical reenactment but as a simulation it falls flat. What I mean by scipted is, playing as the Germans you will attack Poland with no ability to pick when or set up, or perhaps even attack France. You will be attacked by Russia at a predetermined point and you will suffer through the Russian winter while the other side does not. The US will join the war against you at its predetermined date. All this reenacts what happened with very little room for variation, hence why I am looking at SC2, that I believe solves not only the reenactment problem but also has HQs that are meaningful to the game as you have suggested they have here.

Fallshcirmjaeger -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (5/21/2008 8:22:05 PM)
A little idea about "adjusting" the costs of Commanders. Since this appears to be non-moddable, perhaps the solution lies in modifying the PP values of cities and resources instead. Perhaps even adding new cities to provide more PP. In effect, just give yourself more cash and things become "cheaper." Of course, this has a deflationary effect on all other costs in the game as well, but it is perhaps a solution. Another idea might be to lower the costs of other units, thus again giving yourself more PP to spend on Commanders. The thing about modifying units and research is that any changes made are global, meaning that if you change the cost of Corps, it is changed for everyone, both Axis and Allies. <oS>

firepowerjohan -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (5/21/2008 8:28:28 PM)
There is a trick to making cheaper commanders. You can make a distinction so that those with combat skills have zero leadership and those with leadership skill have zero combat skills. That removes excessive cost from them For example, giving Manstein leadership 8 ground attack 0 ground defence 0 would make him a lot cheaper than now.

alaric318 -> RE: Not to be too critical but.... (5/22/2008 2:47:23 AM)
about russian winter... you only lose readyness if are on russian ground when winter happens, each winter decreased in effect from '41 onwards, so, as i do every game, the best time to attack is not june, it is around march/april, the last winter month is february, to maximize the time that passed on untill winter sets, if you destroy enough russians you, in effect, reduce the effect of winter, as the russian counter attack will be lesser dangerous, if the russian player make decision to retreat, then you can take some of his resources and bring more reinforcements and commanders, given the "at start" research on organisation and with some commanders, the german army will recover fast his readyness penalty, between knocking out france and the USA enter on the war you have a time window of some months to make decision to when and how attack russia. and with permission, allow me for another note... The thing about modifying units and research is that any changes made are global, meaning that if you change the cost of Corps, it is changed for everyone, both Axis and Allies. not allways, i explain it... in research you have freedom to mod the industrial technology, how many have each major power and how many each level gives, in example, to make a mod balanced for the axis you can set (not sure max level, but i try "9" each industrial tech and it works), you can set, following the given example, each industrial tech. a +9 that sums to "war effort" and directly affect your income, and then give germany level 5 at start and all others level 1, will be a very hard setting for the allied side, if default is 100% war effort, this way you can increase around 1/3, or even more, so making cheaper the units and commanders only to the major powers that receive the initial industrial tech increase, just my opinions about latest posts, excuse my poor english, thanks for read and best regards, alarick.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9057617