The Blitzkrieg Mod is designed to emulate the military tactics and strategies used in World War two in Europe, especially Blitzkrieg. I have main two goals: making the gameplay more dynamic and realistic. This means that the gameplay will be more complexed and nuanced; there will be many features unique to this mod. In addition to enhanced gameplay, the AI will be smarter, there will be more units, and a larger map. Thus, it is suffice to say this mod is going to be less complex than Hearts of Iron II but more than Road to War. As you probably guessed, this mod is going to be based off of Road to War and thus captures some of the key elements, but with significant improvements. Hopefully, this mod will advance so far it barely resembles RTW

http://www.2ndpanzerdivision.com/Guderian.jpg
The Father of Blitzkrieg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg), General Heinz Guderian

So far I have not yet started making the actual mod because I am still waiting for Dale to release the final version of RTW 3. However, I have tested a few features I am going add to the mod. So far this is what I have done:

1. Military Control: Once your unit occupies an enemy square you own it.

2. Unit Fuel and Ammo: Each military unit has a supply of fuel and mechanized units also have fuel. When a unit is connected to the capital it automatically gets fuel and ammo. However, if it is cut off and has no ammo it becomes weaker and if no fuel it can't move.

3. (partially)Directional Fortification: Frontal attacks on defenders are now harder. Also, there are buttons to turn your units.

Obviously that is not all that I want to do but it is good for now. If you have any suggestions just write them in the suggestion thread.

Contributers:
GarretSidzaka (Fonts)
Dale (the entire base of the mod)
Grey Fox (UnitFuel)

EDIT: I just finished with the new and improved Military Control mod component. Click here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=10134) to download it. It has a bunch of new features that allow it to work independent of a mod where war is a constant. If you want more info click here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7073694#post7073694).

I'm not sure what is more intriguing, the ammo and fuel supply system, or the directional fortification.

More than unique units, graphics, techs or buildings, I get a thrill out of mods that change how the game is played.

I hope that there will be some modification to the strength of units.This MOD seems to be a more historically accurate MOD than RtW, so I hope to see some changes in that field. It looks pretty good so far, are you going to add new unique units? Or is it only limited to the units in the next RtW Addon?

It would be nice to see some new changes to the way airborne and marines fight. I mean, airborne would defend better when entrenched, which could take a turn and each sequential turn would give a larger bonus. And you could also add something such as supply drops, which would keep the airborne supplied and fueled for any other movement. Marines would also have the same situation. However, does supply automatically cross sea zones? For example, if you owned southern france and the mediterranean, would you get supply to Algeria, if you owned everything in between? The potential for this Mod looks astounding, but I would also like to see a unique airborne unit for the US, Britain, Germany and a unique (improved) marine unit for the US. That would be very interesting to see how that would play out. I hope that this one turns out better than the new RtW BETA though. :)

I would be happy to give you my Huge sized Europe map, once it is finished.

Well, what new ideas are you going to put in this Europe map of yours? I read some of your posts in the units strengths thread, some of them looked pretty good and some of your theories look complicated, but I assume reachable. I would like to either make my own or download an actually good WW2 MOD. But yeah, sure, I'll take you up on the offer when your finished.

Well, what new ideas are you going to put in this Europe map of yours? I read some of your posts in the units strengths thread, some of them looked pretty good and some of your theories look complicated, but I assume reachable. I would like to either make my own or download an actually good WW2 MOD. But yeah, sure, I'll take you up on the offer when your finished.

Well, I was talking to Sangeli, but you can have it too if you like.

The map is just a bigger version of the current Europe scenario. It contains no gameplay changes whatsoever, but I designed city locations with my Giant Unit List in mind. It should still work perfectly when using Dale's Addon Pack 3 beta2 though.

First off, I do intend to use the huge map of Europe eventually. That being said, I am going to work on gameplay and units before I work on the map (using different map requires re-working triggers and those sorts of things). So, Chamboozer, I'd appreciate it if you made the map but you can take your sweet time doing so.

Second, I do intend on making new units, but probably not on the first release. My plan is to wait for Asio's World War Two 1939 scenario and take most of his units, that way I dont' have to spend too much time on it.

Right now I am re-working the Military Control aspect. If you managed to look at some of my posts about Military Control you might have noticed a few significant problems. However, I feel that the new Military Control addresses all of the problems (there might be a few AI problems but we'll just have to wait and see). Within the next couple of days I'm going to release a Military Control mod component. I'll make sure to put it up here as well as in the mod compenent section.

I'm not sure what is more intriguing, the ammo and fuel supply system, or the directional fortification.

More than unique units, graphics, techs or buildings, I get a thrill out of mods that change how the game is played.

Oh, and by the way, there is going to be A LOT more of that kind of stuff. The ultimate gameplay component will (hopefully) be the Division. Basically, whenever you create a unit you are actually making a Division and within a division you have battalions. The key is that you specifically design each of your divisions and create a standard composition for each type. That means you can design divisions with any combination of battalions you want (8 battalions per division). The great thing is that you only have to do it once: once you standardize the composition of each type of division (armoured, infantry, etc) every unit you build of that said division has that exac composition. And if you want, you can make a custom division (you must choose the battalions every time you create the unit so it takes longe). Thus, you will be able to acheive superior control over your military, even more control than in super sophisticated games like HoI. Creating such a device as the Division is finally acheiving true combined arms warfare, yet to exist in any ame yet. However, this is a LONG ways away and you probably won't see it for at least a year (if ever).

Oh, and by the way, there is going to be A LOT more of that kind of stuff. The ultimate gameplay component will (hopefully) be the Division. Basically, whenever you create a unit you are actually making a Division and within a division you have battalions. The key is that you specifically design each of your divisions and create a standard composition for each type. That means you can design divisions with any combination of battalions you want (8 battalions per division). The great thing is that you only have to do it once: once you standardize the composition of each type of division (armoured, infantry, etc) every unit you build of that said division has that exac composition. And if you want, you can make a custom division (you must choose the battalions every time you create the unit so it takes longe). Thus, you will be able to acheive superior control over your military, even more control than in super sophisticated games like HoI. Creating such a device as the Division is finally acheiving true combined arms warfare, yet to exist in any ame yet. However, this is a LONG ways away and you probably won't see it for at least a year (if ever).

So are you going to organize this as: 1 unit is a battalion (lets say an infantry unit) and you can combine 8 of them to create an infantry division. And after you do, you can just tell a city to make another infantry division of that same structure?
Anyway, the MOD sounds awesome, I cant wait! :P

Where do you see this mod falling on a scale of historically accurate to fun?

Can the AI interpret facing?

I'm more worried about the realism of directional defense. You won't need to keep your divisions in groups of 4 to defend from every angle, right? You should be able to make them center their defense for a smaller bonus from every angle.

What does directional defense at the battalion/divisional level represent in terms of the fortnight turn timeframes?

What does directional defense at the battalion/divisional level represent in terms of the fortnight turn timeframes?

First off, I want to change the fortnight to a week.

The whole idea is to emulate being surrounded. In other games, like HOI, you can attack one area from multiple areas at the same time. However, in Civ, you can only attack from one square at a time. Thus, as of now, there is no difference in putting 8 units in one square and attacking than having eight units, one in each square surrounding the enemy and attacking. However, with directional bonuses for the defender, attacking from one tile (assuming its a frontal attack) is far less effective than attacking from every tile because the bonus is not provided (each time you attack the defending unit turns and faces you automatically so it is possible to prevent the defender from ever getting the directional bonus.

The secondary function is to make the flanks of units more exposed (attacks from the sides are more effective) thus making and maintaining breakthroughs harder.

EDIT: As of now the AI doesn't know about facing. However, once I flush out the non AI problems I will try to figure out a way that the AI can use facing in an intelligent matter.

I'm more worried about the realism of directional defense. You won't need to keep your divisions in groups of 4 to defend from every angle, right? You should be able to make them center their defense for a smaller bonus from every angle.

Well this is how its going to work: turning a unit uses up movement points. So, if you are trying to make an advance at the enemy, you can't turn your units without slowing yourself down. However, I will make a button for making your units defend every direction evenly (that too takes up movement points) and get a plus 10% overall in defense.

So are you going to organize this as: 1 unit is a battalion (lets say an infantry unit) and you can combine 8 of them to create an infantry division. And after you do, you can just tell a city to make another infantry division of that same structure?
Anyway, the MOD sounds awesome, I cant wait! :P

You actually have to combine battalions into a division; battalions cannot exist on their own. In order to prevent the game from having too many units, I plan on upon creation of the division to, in sense, get rid of all the battalions. What I mean by that is that you can't actually look individually at each battalion: the only reminence of the battalion is the fact that the division is the accumulation of every unit (weighted by strength). For example, if you had a division of 7 infantry with 10 str and 25% bonus for cities and one tank of (for this example, obviously not true) 70 str with a 25% bonus against other tanks the division would look like this: 17.5 str 12.5% for cities 12.5% against tanks.

However, as I said, this project is far from even bein started; right now I am just brainstorming. More specifically, I need someone to design the interface for standardizing divisions.

Will all units be able to change their direction? It doesn't seem right for the maginot line to be able to turn around.

Is it possible to internalize this as much as possible to avoid the kind of micro-management that comes hand-in-hand with unit facing? Are you attempting to simulate battle lines here?

I guess what I should be asking is, do you want to create the specific unit facing idea you had because you really like that idea and want to see it in a game, or is this one idea you had to simulate unit facing/battle lines? If it's the former, awesome - that'd be cool to see if it could be done. If it's the latter, awesome - I will keep nitpicking and questioning and brainstorming if it's helping you refine the concept. :)

This whole thing sounds sweet. I hope you can figure out how to make facing and battalions and all work, and I'll take a look myself. Do you have any ideas yet of how you'll implement the battalion idea? I can start poking around starting with whatever ideas you have so far. And I know that the Afterworld mod uses some sort of facing; don't know if it gives a defense bonus tho, I'll have to look.

Re fuel/ammo connection to capital, does it necessarily have to be the capital? I understand how this might be best/easiest in programming terms (e.g., this is how resources are handled in CIV), but for example say you have units in the Middle East, with oil resources there under your control, but you lose connection to your capital -- it seems reasonable to think that those units would be able to utilize that oil, at least partially (e.g., if some city under their control and connected to the resource has a 'refinery' or somesuch).

Similarly, have you thought about oil supply in terms of amount? E.g., one CIV oil resource supplies say 100 units, so if you want/need to supply more than 100 units you will need a second source of oil. Similarly, will there be consideration for stockpiles/usage, such that a country could be accumulating its strategic reserve during the pre-war years (e.g., 100 unit-supplies per turn), then using them once units start moving around and fighting (there could also be some reduced-usage amount which units use while idle). Oil shortages could then play out as: no new units, current units move at reduced movement rate or not at all if shortage is severe. Similarly, oil stockpile could be a physical location, i.e. a new building, subject to sabotage and aerial bombing (with partial/complete damage). It would also be nice to see varying usage rates for oil: e.g., cavalry should use no oil at all (unless it is needed for ammo or food-production), infantry units that decide to 'walk' (ie., use less than their full movement rate) use less fuel, while armored units that move at all are using fuel at the full rate, etc.

Lastly, what about trade/lendlease aspects of resource usage (certainly oil, but also food/other resources)? I don't know the historic details completely, but the USA was shipping supplies to the USSR via Murmansk, and obviously the British Isles were receiving supplies from its colonies/allies. This is currently simplified in CIV as trace-route-to-capital and the naval blockade features. In a micro-management sense, it would be interesting to actually have to send ships on missions to get this accomplished (e.g., perhaps simplified as a new type of unit or great person in a transport ship, subject to partial/complete damage when it attempts to run a blockade, mitigated by naval escort -- the stronger the escort compared to the strength of the blockaders). E.g., the convoy ship is like a copy of a transport, with 5 slots (but no attack/defense value), the slots are occupied by 5 units/persons representing oil/whatever, the blockade-run outcome is 20% success, so only one of the 5 unit-slots survives to complete the mission. Or perhaps the convoy-unit is a special unit like a fishing boat (or great person you can create, which can travel by sea without need for a transport), each one representing the specific resource used to create it, and whichever ones survive the blockade run are the ones credited to the receiving city/civ.

Wouldn't it be more logical for fuel for units to trace back to an oil refinery? Gives oil refinerys are much better use within the game. That way you can have remote points of fuel supply (say Middle East).

Wouldn't it be more logical for fuel for units to trace back to an oil refinery? Gives oil refinerys are much better use within the game. That way you can have remote points of fuel supply (say Middle East).

It might make more sence, but its so much harder. Its much easier just to say that if a unit is in the trade network it gets refueled.

Fair enough. :)

BTW, BETA3 is out now. I don't envisage too much code change now.

I think I've seen mods where oil is accumulated the same way :espionage: or :gold: are. I'll try to find some. And will it be possible to take over someone else's store of oil?

I think I've seen mods where oil is accumulated the same way :espionage: or :gold: are. I'll try to find some. And will it be possible to take over someone else's store of oil?

When you capture a city you get some of its gold. Maybe it can be similar to that.

re another new unit, what about a partisan/guerrilla type unit? I know there are many issues with this (I hated when they popped up way back in an earlier version of Civ), but it would add realism. If the weakest infantry is 10-strength, then these should be like 5-strength but with promotions for hill-defense and forest-defense. Question is, should these just pop up automatically when a city falls (and are controlled by the AI), or are they a unit one can build for insertion into another country (like spies and under your control), or perhaps both? If it is a buildable unit, it should be expensive -- more expensive than regular infantry or spies (to deter the AI from building nothing but these units), and/or should perhaps cost some gold and espionage points to build it. Similarly, it could be a game-event, where you are prompted to spend cash/espionage to create some variable number of partisan units when a particular city falls (e.g., the city has your propaganda/religion/government).

I like the idea of a partisan unit, and the event thing when a city falls. Partisans would be dang annoying, but realistically annoying ;) Maybe should Fascist cities get fewer partisans? IDK

When you capture a city you get some of its gold. Maybe it can be similar to that.

I'm not going to do that, but if someone presents me with mod that does, I might implement it.

Answering Dale:

You say there not going to be many changes, but when will the final version be released? I rather just test out the seperate compenents on a different mod and put it later, provided that the final version doesn't take too long to finish.

I've got to fix up the maps as per Chamboozer's comments, but that should be it. :)

So let's say a week maximum (should be earlier).

Where do you download and extract this to? I tried downloading and extracting in Road to War folder but it didnt work..i wanna use it for Road to War

I wont be playing it on a ''larger'' map...I can barly even handel the Standard Europe map that Road to War has..becuz it seems bigger then standard..and it has soooo many civs it lags like crazy

I wont be playing it on a ''larger'' map...I can barly even handel the Standard Europe map that Road to War has..becuz it seems bigger then standard..and it has soooo many civs it lags like crazy

Haha. That's understandable. The one i'm making is only for those whose computers are up to the challenge.

Where do you download and extract this to? I tried downloading and extracting in Road to War folder but it didnt work..i wanna use it for Road to War

any help?

I still cant figure it out

any help?

I still cant figure it out

Not sure what it is you are trying to do. I didn't think Sangeli had released anything yet?

Dan

Where do you download and extract this to? I tried downloading and extracting in Road to War folder but it didnt work..i wanna use it for Road to War

Uh...the only thing so far I've posted is a mod component which is completely separate from road to war; its independent. Just extract the file to the Mods folder.

I think it would be very cool if you could implement a supply system. You have started on it when talking about fuel.

Supplying troops in combat is 50% of the battle and that is just not represented yet. German could not continue with thier advance largely due to fuel.

Blitzkrieg was suspended in France when the petrol had not caught up with the tanks. This happend to Rommel.

Heck the war in Africa was lost due to supply shortage on the axis side.

Also SUPPLY DUMPS would be a nice benifit.

Just my 2 cents at 2 am

Uh...the only thing so far I've posted is a mod component which is completely separate from road to war; its independent. Just extract the file to the Mods folder.

O sorry..im not good with mods..i thought a mod component was something for a mod..

my bad

wouldnt it be easier to have a supply unit, i know they had something like that in some medivial mod. these units could be similar to ships, for instance once in a city they could load up on oil, ammo, food, etc and there could be an early, advanced, modern set up where early could only carry certian amount of tonnage (early 3 tons, advanced 4 tons, modern 5 tons). assuming the supplies where doled out in tons. plus cities would have to build supplies, similar to wealth or science.

wouldnt it be easier to have a supply unit, i know they had something like that in some medivial mod. these units could be similar to ships, for instance once in a city they could load up on oil, ammo, food, etc and there could be an early, advanced, modern set up where early could only carry certian amount of tonnage (early 3 tons, advanced 4 tons, modern 5 tons). assuming the supplies where doled out in tons. plus cities would have to build supplies, similar to wealth or science.


I agree
with this

^^ But imagine the mircomanagement needed to maintain your armies

I don't think that 'supplies' should be something which has to be built by production, that doesn't seem very realistic to me. Perhaps 'supplies' are something which a goods factory simply generates each turn, and this amount is stockpiled in the city (and can also be 'moved' to an external supply dump somehow). Additionally, if engineer specialists are assigned then additional supplies are generated, and a smaller amount if worker specialists are assigned, and a tiny baseline amount is generated by each city (representing the amount generated by the forges/factories/etc which we do not see). Thus most cities would be capable of creating minimal amounts of supplies for basic use by the populace while some few cities could generate large amounts to drive the war machine, without affecting normal production needs nor (hopefully) confusing the AI.

Otherwise, I think the supply-accumulation feature should mostly only apply to oil (and also ammo, if something like that is added separately from supplies). If it were expanded to all of the health/happy resources, it would indeed get out of hand in terms of micromanagement, and for very little gain for how such resources are handled currently. E.g., who really cares exactly how much ivory has been stockpiled since it has only a very-minor role in this scenario? Stockpiling resources such as aluminum (for building, but not maintaining, air units?), coal (allows rail movement?), copper (???), iron (??? building armor units?) would also have nice strategic implications.

However, operationalizing the movement of various food resources could be useful in terms of running blockades (as I've mentioned elsewhere) or for alleviating starvation in an encircled city. Obviously the food would have to be airlifted in to alleviate the siege, and this would have to somehow add food to the food-bin (currently it only adds health/happiness, which wouldn't be quite as useful in such a situation).


Summarization/Suggestion:

OIL - affects air/armor/naval builds, air/armor/naval/motorized-infantry movement [1 unit of oil used for each movement of air/armor/naval units per turn, and each movement of an infantry unit beyond 1-space (which represents marching without motorized assistance), cavalry do not require oil for movement], airlifting and paradropping (1 oil-unit for each airlift operation). Armor/naval units without oil supply cannot move (-33%/-25% movement cumulative, or immobile at 1.5-2.0 months) and lose battle effectiveness -10% each turn (max -50% at 2.5 months). Air units without fuel cannot conserve fuel and still do full missions (e.g. bombing, air strikes) but could conceiveably still do interception missions perhaps at reduced distance and slightly-reduced effectiveness. Anti-air require oil for movement, but not operation.

COAL - affects production capacity/efficiency (coal plants?), rail movement [1 unit of coal for each rail-movement by each unit per turn]

SUPPLIES -- affects city production capacity/efficiency at a rate much lower than coal, affects 'readiness' of all military units (e.g., lack of supplies could be -10% attack/defense and could accumulate per turn like fortified defense bonus, possible max = -50% at 2.5 months), cavalry require double supplies of infantry (food for horses), air/armor/navy require triple supplies of infantry, anti-air same as infantry. Perhaps unsupplied units in a city (even encircled/besieged) should lose effectiveness at a reduced rate due to scavanging in the city (-5% instead of -10%, but can still max out at -50% it just takes longer)?

So, example based on the above, in a besieged city with one infantry and one armor unit, and no stockpile of oil or supplies, after 3 months the infantry would be at -50% and the armor would be at -100% (i.e., useless). Not sure game-conceptwise if 'supplies' and 'ammo' should be separate from each other, it would make it additionally complex and it is not clear to me operationally how they would differ very much (e.g., if you have supplies but no ammo, you're still very-screwed; but if you have ammo but no supplies, you can shoot but maybe you are starving/freezing/sick-with-malaria/etc and are still ineffective -- so what is the difference if you are -0% for supplies and -50% for lack of ammo, or -50% for lack of supplies and -0% for ammo?)

Stockpiling: must be a way to do this within a city and also out in the countryside. Oil depot and supply depot should probably be separate buildings. It could work something like a granary -- oil/supply depot allows expanded capacity of stockpile, but can still accumulate oil/supplies without one up to a certain low-maximum amount. Oil/supply dump could be built by workers like a fort in the countryside (less time to build, and doesn't destroy improvements already on the square). Also, forts should have the ability to stockpile oil and supplies. Forts/dumps should have smaller capacity than city stockpiles. Forts/dumps can be bombed or sabotaged, if successful they lose some amount of the stockpiled amount ('damaged' means facility must be repaired by workers before lost capacity can be restored, '100% damage' means facility must be rebuilt from scratch and entire stockpile is lost). Probably should make it harder to sabotage a dump/depot (compared to say a theatre or a farm) due to strategic importance and hence obvious emphasis on security, which could be increased in the usual ways by stationing counter-spies/military-units there.

How to 'use' the stockpiles out in the country? Dunno... here is the brainstorm. This could get very complicated. Each unit has a current 'source' of supplies/oil, which it draws down each time it does something. You can change the current source so as to control which stockpiles are being used at which time. Perhaps there should be an 'allocation' screen to control which sources are feeding which stockpiles (should highlight stockpiles which are already full, and have some way of indicating lost capacity due to nowhere to store it). But how does a unit not in a city and not stationed at a supply dump actually 'use' the supplies/oil? Air units are at a base, so that shouldn't be a problem (unless of course the stockpile at the base has run out). However, how to supply armor/infantry/navy outside one's borders? Perhaps this is the place for the supply-unit mentioned above? In any case, units will have to be able to trace an open path to some source. If such a unit is destroyed, what happens then? Unrealistic that all units would be immobile immediately, but would likely be at reduced movement and then run out after rationing of remainder runs out. Perhaps if trace-a-route-to-a-supply-unit is unworkable maybe allow units to 'resupply' simply by being in the same square as the supply unit, allowing the supply unit to visit several squares each turn to supply the units there.

Gosh that's a lot, I better stop babbling now...

Woah...if we can get that sort of stuff to work, that'd be awesome. Hope we can get it to work tho...

Sidenote, Sangeli, how does your special culture system work? It's different from what Dale used in RTW, right? I wanna try it out. Can you post your most recent version, at least just post what I need to paste into my xml or python or wherever?

OK, I won't even pretend that I understand any of this, but here are some links talking about resource accumulation and also zone of control:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=276983&highlight=fuel+usage

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5243134&postcount=10


As an aside, have any of you seen the "World Of Civilization" modders thread about creating an interface so that mods can be easily combined by users? I've not tried it yet, but I kinda like the idea of pick-and-choose.

I don't think that 'supplies' should be something which has to be built by production, that doesn't seem very realistic to me. Perhaps 'supplies' are something which a goods factory simply generates each turn, and this amount is stockpiled in the city (and can also be 'moved' to an external supply dump somehow). Additionally, if engineer specialists are assigned then additional supplies are generated, and a smaller amount if worker specialists are assigned, and a tiny baseline amount is generated by each city (representing the amount generated by the forges/factories/etc which we do not see). Thus most cities would be capable of creating minimal amounts of supplies for basic use by the populace while some few cities could generate large amounts to drive the war machine, without affecting normal production needs nor (hopefully) confusing the AI.

Otherwise, I think the supply-accumulation feature should mostly only apply to oil (and also ammo, if something like that is added separately from supplies). If it were expanded to all of the health/happy resources, it would indeed get out of hand in terms of micromanagement, and for very little gain for how such resources are handled currently. E.g., who really cares exactly how much ivory has been stockpiled since it has only a very-minor role in this scenario? Stockpiling resources such as aluminum (for building, but not maintaining, air units?), coal (allows rail movement?), copper (???), iron (??? building armor units?) would also have nice strategic implications.

However, operationalizing the movement of various food resources could be useful in terms of running blockades (as I've mentioned elsewhere) or for alleviating starvation in an encircled city. Obviously the food would have to be airlifted in to alleviate the siege, and this would have to somehow add food to the food-bin (currently it only adds health/happiness, which wouldn't be quite as useful in such a situation).


Summarization/Suggestion:

OIL - affects air/armor/naval builds, air/armor/naval/motorized-infantry movement [1 unit of oil used for each movement of air/armor/naval units per turn, and each movement of an infantry unit beyond 1-space (which represents marching without motorized assistance), cavalry do not require oil for movement], airlifting and paradropping (1 oil-unit for each airlift operation). Armor/naval units without oil supply cannot move (-33%/-25% movement cumulative, or immobile at 1.5-2.0 months) and lose battle effectiveness -10% each turn (max -50% at 2.5 months). Air units without fuel cannot conserve fuel and still do full missions (e.g. bombing, air strikes) but could conceiveably still do interception missions perhaps at reduced distance and slightly-reduced effectiveness. Anti-air require oil for movement, but not operation.

COAL - affects production capacity/efficiency (coal plants?), rail movement [1 unit of coal for each rail-movement by each unit per turn]

SUPPLIES -- affects city production capacity/efficiency at a rate much lower than coal, affects 'readiness' of all military units (e.g., lack of supplies could be -10% attack/defense and could accumulate per turn like fortified defense bonus, possible max = -50% at 2.5 months), cavalry require double supplies of infantry (food for horses), air/armor/navy require triple supplies of infantry, anti-air same as infantry. Perhaps unsupplied units in a city (even encircled/besieged) should lose effectiveness at a reduced rate due to scavanging in the city (-5% instead of -10%, but can still max out at -50% it just takes longer)?

So, example based on the above, in a besieged city with one infantry and one armor unit, and no stockpile of oil or supplies, after 3 months the infantry would be at -50% and the armor would be at -100% (i.e., useless). Not sure game-conceptwise if 'supplies' and 'ammo' should be separate from each other, it would make it additionally complex and it is not clear to me operationally how they would differ very much (e.g., if you have supplies but no ammo, you're still very-screwed; but if you have ammo but no supplies, you can shoot but maybe you are starving/freezing/sick-with-malaria/etc and are still ineffective -- so what is the difference if you are -0% for supplies and -50% for lack of ammo, or -50% for lack of supplies and -0% for ammo?)

Stockpiling: must be a way to do this within a city and also out in the countryside. Oil depot and supply depot should probably be separate buildings. It could work something like a granary -- oil/supply depot allows expanded capacity of stockpile, but can still accumulate oil/supplies without one up to a certain low-maximum amount. Oil/supply dump could be built by workers like a fort in the countryside (less time to build, and doesn't destroy improvements already on the square). Also, forts should have the ability to stockpile oil and supplies. Forts/dumps should have smaller capacity than city stockpiles. Forts/dumps can be bombed or sabotaged, if successful they lose some amount of the stockpiled amount ('damaged' means facility must be repaired by workers before lost capacity can be restored, '100% damage' means facility must be rebuilt from scratch and entire stockpile is lost). Probably should make it harder to sabotage a dump/depot (compared to say a theatre or a farm) due to strategic importance and hence obvious emphasis on security, which could be increased in the usual ways by stationing counter-spies/military-units there.

How to 'use' the stockpiles out in the country? Dunno... here is the brainstorm. This could get very complicated. Each unit has a current 'source' of supplies/oil, which it draws down each time it does something. You can change the current source so as to control which stockpiles are being used at which time. Perhaps there should be an 'allocation' screen to control which sources are feeding which stockpiles (should highlight stockpiles which are already full, and have some way of indicating lost capacity due to nowhere to store it). But how does a unit not in a city and not stationed at a supply dump actually 'use' the supplies/oil? Air units are at a base, so that shouldn't be a problem (unless of course the stockpile at the base has run out). However, how to supply armor/infantry/navy outside one's borders? Perhaps this is the place for the supply-unit mentioned above? In any case, units will have to be able to trace an open path to some source. If such a unit is destroyed, what happens then? Unrealistic that all units would be immobile immediately, but would likely be at reduced movement and then run out after rationing of remainder runs out. Perhaps if trace-a-route-to-a-supply-unit is unworkable maybe allow units to 'resupply' simply by being in the same square as the supply unit, allowing the supply unit to visit several squares each turn to supply the units there.

Gosh that's a lot, I better stop babbling now...

I don't think the AI will be capable of doing that. How about 1 year with no supplies = dead unit?

Obviously, whether the AI can handle any of this is another issue entirely.

Certainly the reduced-effectiveness rate/amount is open for debate. A year (24 turns) sounds a little long, when one considers how rough things got for unsupplied/cut-off units in North Africa, at Stalingrad, or in the Battle of the Bulge in much less time. Maybe it should include a component where the unit must be 'under duress' at least at some minimal level for the effectiveness to decay. This came to mind after skimming that other thread about the zone of control mod which worked like actively-blockading a port -- units decay as long as opposing units are in the ZoC, are being bombed, etc. If the unit isn't under siege, then it can conserve resources without using them and even forage freely more widely for supplies.

The trickiest part will be figuring out how to handle supply/fuel for ground units in enemy territory. One could simplify the operationalization of naval units as including (unseen) support ships whenever one builds a ship (i.e., it isn't just "one battleship" it is "one battleship battlegroup"), and extend that definition as these units are under supply if they can trace a route to an open port which has access to oil. Yes, simplified; but would save some micromanagement if a supply-ship/unit cannot be easily defined.

Naval blocades would then become more usefull.

Hey Guys. I have been keeping track of this thread since I've made some changes to my own RTW since the release (I've done WWII mods for all the prior civs when they came out) and have been trying to get the fuel mod to work with it... but I can't get the damned SDK to compile into something that runs.

Anywho, I like the idea of limited resources since it was a main component in WWII strategy (or any conquest really). I think limiting it to fuel and maybe supplies would be best and in turn utilize the corporation's ability to grant production bonuses per strategic resource, eg. 3 coal + 1 Iron = 4x 5% = +20% production in all cities linked to it. It makes it easier for the AI to understand plus simplifies resource management.

As for Supply Attrition, it could be similar to the fuel storage where a shortage would trigger a negative penalty (Lurker's suggestion). Supply production would be similar to gold production except be tied in with food (or production) so that a besieged city would start dying if all tiles were occupied and cannot support units.

Some things I have implemented in my own are Stack attack bonuses for U-boats, Civ specific techs (Russian and Nazi's), a greater tank technology tree with more realistic strengths/costs (because the war was NEVER balanced), merchant ships that give gold to the Allies when coming to port (still working on this to work properly) and pretty a major unit/building overhauls to reflect more realistically (eg. Finland owned the Russians intitially, also Russia was much more centralized so taking their capital results in a serious blow to the rest of the economy) and more. I'm working on Event triggers to be realistic and to help the AI out.

I would like to help since I've already merged the fuel mod SDK files with RTW ones and done a lot of art/stats changes already and it's a shame to duplicate work. Let me know.

I've already merged the fuel mod SDK files with RTW ones and done a lot of art/stats changes already and it's a shame to duplicate work.

Does your merged SDK work? You said it didn't before, but does it now? I like the sound of the stuff you've done. Can you give any more details?

There should be some representation of organization and morale. Perhaps some sort of "morale meter?" The meter would exist for your entire army. The higher the morale meter the greater the chance that your units will strike with greater power than usual. If the meter is lower your units have an increased chance of striking with lower than usual power. Things like government type and propaganda can also influence morale. The propaganda units that already exist could be consumed to increase morale, similar to Great People causing Golden Ages.

The facing and supply functions are an excellent idea, as is the "military control" concept.

I was also thinking there should be some sort of communication/organization function. Perhaps there could be units called "officers," and units not within a certain radius of an officer lose both movement points and strength. This emulates the fact that blitzkrieg fundamentally works by disrupting the communications and organization of the defending force, not by physically destroying it.

Also, I would like to see motorized infantry units added to the game, or at the very least a "truck" or "halftrack" unit, or both, that could transport infantry to keep up with tanks--an integral aspect of the success of the Panzer divisions.

Great ideas, however I believe work on this mini-mod has stalled.

You may wish to check out my mod, which is at least under development.

Great ideas, however I believe work on this mini-mod has stalled.

You may wish to check out my mod, which is at least under development.

Your modmod needs a subforum, maybe... it's the only really active topic in the RtW forums. Far more active then Blitzkrieg.

Thanks for your support TC01.

I am looking forward to releasing my bugfix 0.31. I ask for a sub-forum when I have 3 main mini-mods (Europe / Pacific / Global ).

While there were a lot of great ideas in this Blitzkreig, my one aims to use the strengths of Civ IV (Cities and Civilization management) as opposed to trying to create a unit vs unit style of game.

At least mine is a sticky. :D

Is there any progress on this or is it abandoned?:confused:

Is there any progress on this or is it abandoned?:confused:

Blitzkrieg Mod? I think it's abandoned.

Well it maybe abandoned but I still feel compelled to post just in case Kiwitt adopts it.

I think simplification is the key to Civ, resources work because its easy to understand.

1.Units control territory
I like this but it slighly changes the dynamics of healing since you get 3x the healing in your own territory. Also could be cool to create blockades on land.

2.Unit Supply lines
Okay so a unit needs a connection to his capitol (how about any city) or else bad stuff happens. Rather than create a new system, why not just deal damage? Like 1 damage the first turn then 2 and then go all the way up to 5?
Ex. Stalingrad, The German supply lines are created by early infantry making a short line to the assault spot on the city. Cossacks swoop in and wipe out one of the tiles. All units who no longer connect to German territory take 1HP damage the first turn, nothing to worry about. But it gets worse, and the planes become less able to deal with the russian bombers. Probably want to cancel out the healing bonus provided by sitting in your own territory but hey.

3.Directional fortification
Why not just flanking? If you have units on multiple sides of the enemy you get some bonus? Simpler and doesn't require any UI changes.

Umm... yes, I think Kiwitt's gone on to Kiwitt's RtW. (Hasn't posted here in a while anyway.)

All my effort is going into my own version ... This "Blitzkreig" version is "abandoned" ... I'd like to have my own sub-forum, but I don't think my "mod " is polished enough for that yet.

Good ideas are in here, but I have to consider whether it fits in with my "flavor" (being reading some of the modding tutorials)

I have to consider a new name for my Mod-Mod ... considering "Road to War (Revised)" as opposed to the current development name - "Road to War - KiwiTT"

Rooting for yer mod kiwitt! I like so much of your work so far

I am starting research in to 0.4x - Road to War - Historical. Probably be next year before it is released though.