Suggestions for 1.3 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Road to Victory



Message

Alex Gilbert -> Suggestions for 1.3 (8/10/2008 10:13:17 PM)

Enjoying the game quite a bit. I especially like the implementation of the various events. However, I think most of them are "no-brainers" with no downside for your choices. (Annexation of Lithuania etc). I would like to see more of these events and make them more difficult strategic decisions like those that were faced by the combatants. Some ideas that occurred to me:

Germany:
-Build Fortress Europe: if accepted, lose PP (?20/turn) but have entrenchments built in occupied French cities
-Abandon 4 Engine Bombers: Lose ability to buy strategic bombers but make air armies cheaper (more available engines)
-Women in the workforce: Increase PP but suffer temporary rise in social unrest

Great Britain:
-Switch to nighttime bombing: -20% effectiveness to strat bombing, -30% casualties to bombers
-Go After V2: Lose PP (?30) or suffer increased social unrest (reflecting assets committed to destroying V2 sites)

USSR:
-Heroic Defense- when certain cities (Stalingrad, Leningrad) are threatened (enemy within 2 hexes), you can choose to declare a "heroic defense"- gain PP but if city is lost, social unrest increases.

Other comments:
-- I think there has to be something of value in N Africa. As is, I do not see any real reason for the Axis to commit forces there, or if they do, why the allies should try to take it back. There is no realistic chance of getting to the oil fields, but perhaps a benefit if the Axis can seize the suez canal?

--I was shocked to see Marshall, Eisenhower, and MacArthur on the list of US generals. At this level, Clark, Bradley, Patton, Hodges are appropriate (and present). Others who might replace those three are Devers, Simpson, Ridgeway (you already have 1 corps commander- Collins, so why not Ridgeway) to name a few.

--I am not sure, but if you have air superiority, does it affect naval units? I ask because it seems that Sealion is not possible in this game-- the Germans will never defeat the Royal Navy (in the game or could have in real life). However, if they had defeated the RAF. I do not think the Royal Navy could have defended a channel crossing with the Luftwaffe dominating the air over southern England. So I think air superiority should impact the ability of naval interception. This would also apply for the taking of Denmark.




doomtrader -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/11/2008 9:32:45 AM)

Not to leave you without answer :)

Some of those changes can be done very easily, even by players, some needs little tweaks, and some of them needs engine changes.

We will take a look, what should be done. Those things which could be done, but we are unsure, we can leave for you.



JMass -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/11/2008 10:42:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

-- I think there has to be something of value in N Africa. As is, I do not see any real reason for the Axis to commit forces there, or if they do, why the allies should try to take it back. There is no realistic chance of getting to the oil fields, but perhaps a benefit if the Axis can seize the suez canal?


Maybe an event to switch arab countries to Axis side?



Maddoc06 -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/12/2008 1:27:15 AM)

It may be a big coding challenge but I'd like to see

1. The combat number for ground units (currently a single number) converted to 2 numbers - an attack and defense number. This should be OK with the existing graphics. Some sort of ability to then tweak units (using production points) so that they can increase their defense numbers and maybe even their attack. Land units can then 'specialise' a bit more - maybe simulating increase in artillery for attacking ones, or more heavy squad weapons eg MGs or AT etc for defense.

[In fact I'd like to see the units a little less abstract with more ability to add regiments which represent equipment that gives them advantages when attacking, defending, fighting armour, aircraft etc].

2. The ability to fortify hexes using PPs

3. The ability for land units to entrench if they hadn't moved

4. The ability to specifically purchase fighter, bombers or strategic bombers

5. The ability to see a ship representation in the main map and target it with aircraft from land, carriers and to send your own ships specifically to engage them

6. More air missions eg reconnaisance, reconnaisance patrol (ongoing), strike ships, CAP, supply stranded land units

7. Ability to supply (to a limited extent0 amphibious units which did not capture an enemy port on any costal hex.

8. The ability for neutrals to form alliances (eg an Arab one, or a Turkish led one, or maybe even a Scandinavian one) in addition to the ability to join the Axis, Allies or Commintern

9. The abilty to get transit rights for units through another country which is not part of your alliance but which is not in another zone of control




Vypuero -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/12/2008 2:49:23 AM)

I have some suggestions:

1 - Vichy is too easy - 5 points is far too little and it is easy to get them to join, giving you a nice fleet.

2 - Also for North Africa in general there should be some PP and VPs for say Tripoli, Syria, and French NAF of some kind, even a point or two.  That said, Vichy should have forces at start - some in France, plus some in North Africa - like they did!

3 - The fleet combat needs re-work.  That said, some things to consider:
3.1 - A fleet does not seem to fight together, not sure why.  They should, but then you need to make them have some reasonable limits in sizes.
3.2 - As mentioned, air must be a factor, especially in smaller areas (as opposed to the Atlantic), in Naval Battles.  This means perhaps more role for the CV as well.
3.3 - Missions - I suggest Raider, Escort, Invasion, and Patrol missions.  Escort can be used to protect convoys or transports.
3.4 - Bombard - should only be allowed if you also have ground forces nearby that you invaded with.  Otherwise it is just free damage and does not make any sense.  For example, I could just bombard Malta for the hell of it.  Needs to be associated with a nearby amphibious invasion and/or airborne landings.  i.e. - an Invasion mission.  I would not make it TOO easy to find the invasion mission as it seems to be now.
3.5 - Convoys - I think you may be addressing, but I suggest convoys for Germans (Iron Ore) and more importantly for the UK and tell us when we succeed in hitting either those or supply convoys.
3.6 - I would add the DD unit and re-work subs as well.
3.7 - I am not sure maybe this is correct?  I can transport directly from a port in Italy to a port in say Sicily or even Tripoli without any problem in 1 turn - is it supposed to be that way?  If so, can the enemy intercept me?

4 - May I ask why does more Invasion Transport increase in price?  Makes no sense if they are expended anyway.  Re-usable capacity makes sense to increase, not invasion transport.

5 - Please give me some way to measure the 40 hexes my air can move!  I don't like to count or guess.



winky51 -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/12/2008 4:12:21 AM)

3.1  yes I saw that too fleets that are together sometimes get attacked apart.
3.4 can work IF air units are allowed to intercept to sink ships.
3.5 would be interesting
3.7 your transport I think can get intercepted.  Not sure.
4 yea
5 yea



JMass -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/13/2008 6:20:03 PM)

Add the ability to send resources from an ally to another (without using convoys), for example to send resources from Germany to Italy.



JMass -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/14/2008 12:23:28 AM)

Some Italian ships names need to be correct as below:

77;Giulio Cesare
78;Conte di Cavour
79;Alberico da Barbiano
81;Alberto da Giussano;21;2;12;4;4;0;0
105;Bartolomeo Colleoni;21;2;15;4;4;0;0
107;Eugenio di Savoia;21;2;15;4;4;0;0
109;Muzio Attendolo;21;2;15;4;4;0;0
110;Raimondo Montecuccoli;21;2;15;4;4;0;0



Vypuero -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/14/2008 2:18:59 PM)

also - does the ai fix its ships?  I notice it seemed to keep some of its BB and CV units out at sea at low strength rather than fix them, which meant I was able to kill them in subsequent battles.



Plainian -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/15/2008 4:43:43 PM)

User interface changes -

Quicker Country set up - add hot key functions so that players can arrow down through country list and set them up with a couple of quick key presses.....the current method is pretty tedious?

eg
A for AI
H for human
P for PBEM
+ to increase difficulty
- to decrease difficulty

Ideally I would have like to use a spreadsheet type multi select (ie hold CTRL and click) but maybe the above is easier to code?

Map scrolling - use arrow keys as well as mouse scrolling.
(my mouse still doesn't work properly and I've tried 2 different ones)



JMass -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/17/2008 2:49:12 PM)

Yugoslavia should begin pro-axis and the event "German controlled AI declares war on Yugoslavia" should be linked to a new event "Coup d'etat in Yugoslavia". Now it happens that immediately after the birth of Vichy, Italy and Germany AI declare war on Greece and Yugoslavia.

Add a new event to cover the soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Nothern Bukovina (ultimatum given on June 26 1940) like those on the Baltic States.



JMass -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/17/2008 3:11:03 PM)

If it is not possible change the supply system in the way I suggested in my post (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1878986), raise the "No supply effectivity modifier", now it is 15 and I find too easy cut off the supply german mobile units destroying them the following turn (with weak units!), I set it at 30 and seems work better.

To reflect initial soviet Red Army disorganization could block the construction of corps and limit the level od units at maximum 2 until the autumn 1941.




Dennistoun -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/17/2008 5:21:13 PM)

when exactly will the official patches be available for downloading?



doomtrader -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/17/2008 5:27:18 PM)

Wendsday



JMass -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/17/2008 6:10:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass
Add a new event to cover the soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Nothern Bukovina (ultimatum given on June 26 1940) like those on the Baltic States.


I done by myself [;)]

<!--Soviet ultimatum for Romania-->
<event eventID="504" countryID="3" oneTimeChecking="0" visibleByPlayer="1">
<title>Ultimatum for Romania</title>
<description>
On June 26, 1940, Romania received an ultimatum from the Soviet Union, demanding the evacuation of
the Romanian military and administration from Bessarabia and from the northern part of Bukovina,
with an implied threat of invasion in the event of non-compliance.
</description>
<beginDate day="26" month="6" year="1940"/>
<condition>
<and>
<!--Event not fired and Romania exists and is neutral, no war ussr-germany -->
<expression>
<leftOperand method="Flag.GetValue" param0="504"/>
<operator value="equals"/>
<rightOperand constValue="0"/>
</expression>
<expression>
<leftOperand method="Country.IsActive" param0="26"/>
<operator value="equals"/>
<rightOperand constValue="1"/>
</expression>
<expression>
<leftOperand method="Country.HasWarWithCountry" param0="3" param1="2"/>
<operator value="equals"/>
<rightOperand constValue="0"/>
</expression>
<expression>
<leftOperand method="Country.GetAlliance" param0="26"/>
<operator value="equals"/>
<rightOperand constValue="0"/>
</expression>
</and>
</condition>
<options>
<option optionID="1" chanceAI="100">
<description>Give ultimatum</description>
<tooltip>Effect: Ultimatum event fired for Romania</tooltip>
<effects>
<effect method="Flag.SetValue" param0="504" param1="1"/>
<effect method="Flag.SetValue" param0="1007" param1="1"/>
</effects>
</option>
<option optionID="2" chanceAI="0">
<description>Leave them be</description>
<tooltip>No effect</tooltip>
<effects>
<effect method="Flag.SetValue" param0="504" param1="1"/>
</effects>
</option>
</options>
</event>
<!--Occupation of Bessarabia-->
<event eventID="505" countryID="3" oneTimeChecking="0" visibleByPlayer="1">
<title>Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina</title>
<description>
Under pressure from Moscow and Berlin and without international support, the Romanian administration and
armed forces retreated to avoid war. Without any explanation, the Soviet forces also occupied the Hertza Region.
</description>
<condition>
<and>
<expression>
<leftOperand method="Flag.GetValue" param0="505"/>
<operator value="equals"/>
<rightOperand constValue="0"/>
</expression>
<expression>
<leftOperand method="Flag.GetValue" param0="1007"/>
<operator value="equals"/>
<rightOperand constValue="1"/>
</expression>
</and>
</condition>
<options>
<option optionID="1" chanceAI="100">
<description>Romania has no choice</description>
<tooltip>Effect: Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina annexed by Soviet Union</tooltip>
<effects>
<effect method="Flag.SetValue" param0="505" param1="1"/>
<!--Romanian troops retreating-->
<effect method="Unit.Teleport" param0="176" param1="103" param2="173" param3="107"/>
<effect method="Unit.Teleport" param0="179" param1="107" param2="171" param3="115"/>
<effect method="Unit.Teleport" param0="171" param1="101" param2="170" param3="101"/>
<effect method="Unit.Teleport" param0="174" param1="111" param2="173" param3="112"/>

<!--Territorial Changes-->
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="181" param1="107" param2="3" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="180" param1="106" param2="4" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="179" param1="105" param2="8" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="178" param1="104" param2="8" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="177" param1="102" param2="11" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="176" param1="100" param2="12" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="175" param1="100" param2="13" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="174" param1="99" param2="13" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="173" param1="99" param2="8" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="172" param1="98" param2="5" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="171" param1="98" param2="5" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="170" param1="100" param2="1" param3="3"/>
<effect method="HexStripe.ChangeControllerAndOwner" param0="169" param1="99" param2="2" param3="3"/>

<!--Soviet troops entering-->
<effect method="Unit.Teleport" param0="180" param1="103" param2="174" param3="111"/>
<effect method="Unit.Teleport" param0="179" param1="101" param2="176" param3="103"/>
<effect method="Unit.Teleport" param0="178" param1="99" param2="171" param3="101"/>
</effects>
</option>
</options>
</event>



winky51 -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/18/2008 1:13:47 AM)

Do we just replaced the events.xml you made over any of the same file in any scenario?



doomtrader -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/18/2008 8:11:46 AM)

We suggest you to use much higher ID's for events.

I already have got this ID (504) covered for next patch.

And be prepared to have your own events backuped, as the patch overwrites this file.



JMass -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/18/2008 9:19:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: winky51

Do we just replaced the events.xml you made over any of the same file in any scenario?


Yes

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

We suggest you to use much higher ID's for events.

And be prepared to have your own events backuped, as the patch overwrites this file.


Thanks, I backup all my files before patch games but I follow your advice (I am working on other events).
[:)]



jeffreysutro@jeffreysutro.com -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/19/2008 10:38:08 PM)

Since purchasing the game, a few ideas for the next patch have occured to me.

1) Individual unit experience modifier. Unit experience could increase with time, and increase more rapidly if the unit takes part in combat. Taking replacements would dilute the unit's experience.

2) Give infantry and mobile infantry ability to entrench. There might be two levels of entrenchment, and they could entrench if they took no other action during a turn. They would have to be at level 1 entrenchment in order to upgrade to level 2, and tanks and aircraft would not be able to entrench at all. Entrenching would cost no pp.

3) Allow unlimited stacking of air units in a hex, in addition to a ground unit, similar to the rule for ships in a harbor.

4) Allow stacking of two divisions in the same hex. Note that this would require a change making a corps be more powerful than a pair of divisions, otherwise there would be no incentive to build corps. You could also allow two divisions to combine into a corp, for the expenditure of some pp's (both divisions would have to be at the same level). This would add to historicity and play value both.

Taking this a step further you could allow for a "combined arms" corps made by combining a mobile division with a tank division. It would have a combat value less than that of a tank corps, but more than that of an infantry corps, and the cost would be in between also. The combined arms corps would have the ability to fortify (see above) like an infantry corps, and (like a tank corps) would not suffer a 25% penalty when attacking armored formations. Again, I think this has historical precedent, and would add to the play value of the game.



winky51 -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/20/2008 1:00:05 AM)

thats really changing the programming of the game.



JMass -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/20/2008 1:17:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffreys
4) You could also allow two divisions to combine into a corp, for the expenditure of some pp's (both divisions would have to be at the same level).


If stacking is not possible, it could be very useful the possibility of combine due similar divisions in one corps just moving the first in the hex occupied by the second (consuming all the action points), and the possibility of divide one corps in two divisions.



cpdeyoung -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/20/2008 1:56:12 AM)

I have only had the game a day, but one thing I would appreciate is a variation on the display of hexes a unit can move to. As it stands now a single color is used. I think it would be nice if the last hex a unit could still participate in combat was another color. To the degree it is possible I would appreciate an indication of hexes the unit would be out of supply in also. I know this is more difficult, but I think valuable.

In the screen shot below I have a possible way to show SP left after a move. The small disk with SP makes it clear which hexes adjacent to enemy units the selected unit can attack.

This display could be optional by a user selected preference.

Chuck


[image]local://upfiles/25841/6E39334FE7CA48DEAA3C9E979CB8C2A3.jpg[/image]



doomtrader -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/20/2008 8:41:32 AM)

jeffreys, personally I like your ideas, but it looks like you will have to wait for our other game - Bitter Glory.
The concept of WW2 is a little bit different.

Jmass, probably not possible without redesigning the engine, the game see every unit as a single entity.

I'll prefer giving you back some PP for disbaneded units.


cpdeyoung, I think I can put it on the to do list, but can't promise ATM how it can be resolved.



JMass -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/20/2008 12:30:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Jmass, probably not possible without redesigning the engine, the game see every unit as a single entity.
I'll prefer giving you back some PP for disbaneded units.


I agree, I don't ask revolutionary changes but I consider this as a promise!
[:)] [&o]



doomtrader -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/20/2008 12:42:21 PM)

I'm not promising anything but I think it's worth to try doing it.



winky51 -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/20/2008 1:27:20 PM)

ahhh non-programmers.



jeffreysutro@jeffreysutro.com -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/21/2008 3:16:35 AM)

Even a non-programer like me (I haven't written a program in about 25 years) can see that stacking might be difficult to implement, and might upset the balance and "feel" of the game. I would think however that adding a unit experience modifier and an ability for infantry units to entrench (i.e. build level 1 or 2 fortifications) doesn't seem like it would be very hard to implement or very unbalancing.

While combining divisions into corps may not be practicable, I would think that adding the ability to build a "combined arms" corps (weaker than an armored corps, but with both the ability to entrench and the ability to attack armor without penalty) would also not be too dificult to implement.

That said, I very much like the game as it is, and would recomend it to others. It's just that it would be even better if my ideas were implemented [:D] [8|] (says he modestly). Thank you for an excellent game.



winky51 -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/22/2008 5:11:31 PM)

BTW one thing I noticed, and I'm not sure if this was brought up already, is they I never see the computer opponent's battles vs me.  blank map.



doomtrader -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/22/2008 6:16:59 PM)

Winky, do you mean, that this dice roll box covers battlefield?

It has been already changed



winky51 -> RE: Suggestions for 1.3 (8/22/2008 7:35:44 PM)

nope.

Like this happened. Germany (computer opponent) is attacking Paris (me). The map moves to the Paris hex and surrounding areas and I hear the combat and see the hex change ownership. No combat box, no units. Its an invisible army attacking and defending.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875