Over the Reich - Creation Thread

[Prof. Garfield]

I just changed the events in the previous post, to include an edit forbidding the production of red army groups.

 

[JPetroski]

will probably begin the playtest later today

Sounds good. You might want to wait for the initial sounds to end if you intend to talk through turn 1 as in a test I found I couldn't hear anything over it.

 

[JPetroski]

I figured I'd continue the discussion here as you suggested so it isn't lost.

Frankly I think the reason I'm in the mess I'm in around turn 54 is mainly because you've played very well so I don't want to take anything away from you. The historic missions did stack at inopportune times (you managed to take out Schweinfurt, Peenemunde, and all three Mohne Dams around the same time as you had enough fighters to start chipping away at me), which was somewhat random I suppose, but all in all, well played.

This scenario is meant for the Germans to eventually become desperate and to try to cling on which I think is OK as long as people know that going in. They start with a victory and how long can they last? It is enjoyable - I'm not bored or disenchanted by any stretch. A few obvious questions though:

-Are we really at the "hang on" point in the mid 50's and if so, what does that mean about a 125 turn game? You've long suggested 100 might be better, and you might be onto something there but we'll see.
-The bigger question, I suppose, is how your invasion goes and how fast it can progress with the few units that you get to prosecute it with.

I think we'll learn a lot about both as we go forward. I'm curious about when my "end game" units will show up. I have a pretty good idea right now. We'll see if they are enough.

Some changes I am mulling about:

Critical Industries (As discussed - to replace historic missions). I am now thinking automatic respawn might be better so the Germans always have these out there rather than choosing to abandon them.

Messerschmidt Flugzeugwerke at Regensburg: I like your idea about doubling production of 109s. I would point out that I've built all of a handful in the scenario and it was the most mass produced aircraft of the entire war. I haven't built them because they carry weaker ammo that struggles against B-17s, and they typically only get to fire once after you account for MP spent traveling to target (if it's a really short journey they can fire up to twice). They really aren't worth building in large numbers currently, but I wonder if I got 2 of them every time I built 1, if that would change. I'm trying to think this through in case we did this (every airfield builds 2) and someone built nothing but 109s because of it. I don't think it would imbalance things, because it would mean that you might face twice as many aircraft, but they'd fire 50% to 66% less munitions and the munitions would be weaker. It would be harder for your own aircraft to shoot them down as they have stronger defenses, but your bombers would tear them up defensively I would think. I don't think it would be imbalancing, might get the aircraft built, and would give the German player "some" option when they start getting slammed (which is pretty much why the 1930s design stayed in production throughout the war anyway - it was easier to manufacture). Also, the Allied player can shut it off by hitting Regensburg now and then, so it's not like they're helpless.

If we do this, I would *not* have a 190 plant that does the same thing as those I feel would definitely be imbalanced.

This could potentially respawn 10(?) turns later (you'd probably need a way to keep track of this as the Germans).

Blohm & Voss U-Boot Werke: Same theory but for U-Boats. Maybe you get 2 every time you build one if this is alive. Heck, maybe even 3. This plant is in Hamburg so it's a fairly easy target (I'd say anything along the north German coast is fairly strikeable early). Perhaps it keeps the Battle of the Atlantic competitive a bit longer or at least gives a good reason to build U-Boats (I think I built none).

This could potentially respawn 10(?) turns later (you'd probably need a way to keep track of this as the Germans).

Peenemunde: We need to talk about this one more. Not sure how best to employ it, but what do you think of this? Possibly if it is active and Germans have "experimental design" tech, they have a small chance of earning a "prototype" unit each turn? I don't want them getting 262's on turn 3 but experimental design is a tech that is achievable in the high 30's to 50's depending on what you go for.

Perhaps a respawn time of 10 turns?

Politz Refinery: This is a very deep target in Poland but destroying it would remove Fuel Refinery III or II or I depending on how many the Germans have. This would probably need to respawn 2-3 turns later so it could keep up with potential tech regeneration by the Germans.

Schweinfurt Ball Bearing Plants: Same thing as Politz, but this one takes Industry III, II, or I. Again, it needs to respawn 2-3 turns later so it can be repeatedly hit.

Möhne Dams: The trains being diverted is actually a pain in the rear. Maybe 5 divert each time this thing is killed and it respawns every 5 turns or so?


OTHER CHANGES
-I'm thinking of upping the a2a rocket attack by 1 point given anything that fires it is stuck out there so it ought to be a guaranteed kill which it currently isn't late game.
-I'm considering reworking "hispanos" into another term, giving the same munition to the Fw190A8 as a primary attack, and increasing the Fw190A8's cost to account for it. Right now it has the same cost as the A5 but is weaker defensively. It fires rockets as a secondary which leaves it terribly exposed. It had 4x 20mm cannon as its primary armament so having a more powerful attack would be warranted. The Ta152 would probably also get this attack (it had 1x 30mm and 2x 20mm cannons). It too would probably get an increased cost.

(Just as an explanation, after some playtesting revealed how many more units the Allies would get than the Germans, and after considering how much of Germany's industry would be in rubble, I had left all 190 series at 45 shields, but if 2 are going to be significantly better I might still need to change this).

 

[Prof. Garfield]

-Are we really at the "hang on" point in the mid 50's and if so, what does that mean about a 125 turn game? You've long suggested 100 might be better, and you might be onto something there but we'll see.
-The bigger question, I suppose, is how your invasion goes and how fast it can progress with the few units that you get to prosecute it with.

We might just be at a point where you lose the ability to build up the Dortmund Cologne, Dusseldorf, Essen area. This is a shift, but it might just mean that you have to keep your interceptors out of range of my P38s. When I suggested 100 turns, I wasn't basing that on the game mechanics, but was rather suggesting that the game mechanics be altered to fit that, so the game is shorter.

My next technology is Escort Fighters III, which gives the best P47. Those P47s drop 2x1000lb bombs, so I can use them for air support, and also as escorts when needed. I might decide that I want the best Jabo fighter, to do better against flak, but I don't know.

I guess this means that I am about 4 techs from P51s, and so could have them out in about 10 turns. I suppose that would be the sign of the "hang on" point.

I think that aircraft technology wise, 1st gen P38s, P47s and B17s could achieve the level of air superiority that I have at the moment, though I might need a few more aircraft. So, if Allied research were slowed by a third, then Mustangs would be out around turn 90, while not impacting combat too much as it has occurred thus far.

Messerschmidt Flugzeugwerke at Regensburg: I like your idea about doubling production of 109s. I would point out that I've built all of a handful in the scenario and it was the most mass produced aircraft of the entire war. I haven't built them because they carry weaker ammo that struggles against B-17s, and they typically only get to fire once after you account for MP spent traveling to target (if it's a really short journey they can fire up to twice). They really aren't worth building in large numbers currently, but I wonder if I got 2 of them every time I built 1, if that would change. I'm trying to think this through in case we did this (every airfield builds 2) and someone built nothing but 109s because of it. I don't think it would imbalance things, because it would mean that you might face twice as many aircraft, but they'd fire 50% to 66% less munitions and the munitions would be weaker. It would be harder for your own aircraft to shoot them down as they have stronger defenses, but your bombers would tear them up defensively I would think. I don't think it would be imbalancing, might get the aircraft built, and would give the German player "some" option when they start getting slammed (which is pretty much why the 1930s design stayed in production throughout the war anyway - it was easier to manufacture). Also, the Allied player can shut it off by hitting Regensburg now and then, so it's not like they're helpless.

If we do this, I would *not* have a 190 plant that does the same thing as those I feel would definitely be imbalanced.

This could potentially respawn 10(?) turns later (you'd probably need a way to keep track of this as the Germans).

I'll trust your analysis on this one. We can always tweak the shield cost of the 109s, or make the extra unit appear, say, 80% of the time instead of all the time.

Blohm & Voss U-Boot Werke: Same theory but for U-Boats. Maybe you get 2 every time you build one if this is alive. Heck, maybe even 3. This plant is in Hamburg so it's a fairly easy target (I'd say anything along the north German coast is fairly strikeable early). Perhaps it keeps the Battle of the Atlantic competitive a bit longer or at least gives a good reason to build U-Boats (I think I built none).

This could potentially respawn 10(?) turns later (you'd probably need a way to keep track of this as the Germans).

I'm not so sure about this one. If U-boats are built by train, then trading one U-boat per convoy is to the German advantage (Wolfpacks cost 600s at the moment, right?), since it denies the Allies 4 trains and the fuel. Since Wolf packs can survive death about 2/3 of the time, it seems to me that a critical mass of submarines could give the Allies some very serious trouble in the Atlantic.

How about this: If Blohm & Voss U-Boot Werke is active, and the Germans have less than 3 wolf packs, wolf packs are created in the Atlantic until there are 3. This would keep a German presence in the Atlantic, but if the Germans really want to focus their efforts, then aircraft production will suffer. I don't think a couple wolf packs would create too much extra micromanagement for the Allies. Since convoys tend to survive a single attack and Sunderlands have a lot of movement, the allied player can simply keep a few sunderlands either in the Atlantic or in westerly airbases, and react to the attacks, rather than going on active search and destroy (if there is a lot of danger, then they will have to take a more proactive role, but then the battle is important anyway).

Peenemunde: We need to talk about this one more. Not sure how best to employ it, but what do you think of this? Possibly if it is active and Germans have "experimental design" tech, they have a small chance of earning a "prototype" unit each turn? I don't want them getting 262's on turn 3 but experimental design is a tech that is achievable in the high 30's to 50's depending on what you go for.

Perhaps a respawn time of 10 turns?

Maybe Peenemunde 'researches' each of the techs from pulse jet engines to Vergeltungswaffen 2 for free, say 10 turns per tech, once available. This would mean that the Germans can research other stuff, but still get V1s and V2s, unless the Allies target the facility. If the facility is targeted, the Germans can still do the research elsewhere if they want (or wait for the re-spawn), but then they have to give up other research.

Politz Refinery: This is a very deep target in Poland but destroying it would remove Fuel Refinery III or II or I depending on how many the Germans have. This would probably need to respawn 2-3 turns later so it could keep up with potential tech regeneration by the Germans.

Schweinfurt Ball Bearing Plants: Same thing as Politz, but this one takes Industry III, II, or I. Again, it needs to respawn 2-3 turns later so it can be repeatedly hit.

Möhne Dams: The trains being diverted is actually a pain in the rear. Maybe 5 divert each time this thing is killed and it respawns every 5 turns or so?

These seem good.

At the moment, I've kept the two 'jailbreak' special missions in the scenario (technically, all but Berlin are still in the game). They do seem like missions for which it is reasonable to be random, and also the stakes do not seem so high as to imbalance things. Should we keep them in the updated version, or scrap them?

OTHER CHANGES
-I'm thinking of upping the a2a rocket attack by 1 point given anything that fires it is stuck out there so it ought to be a guaranteed kill which it currently isn't late game.
-I'm considering reworking "hispanos" into another term, giving the same munition to the Fw190A8 as a primary attack, and increasing the Fw190A8's cost to account for it. Right now it has the same cost as the A5 but is weaker defensively. It fires rockets as a secondary which leaves it terribly exposed. It had 4x 20mm cannon as its primary armament so having a more powerful attack would be warranted. The Ta152 would probably also get this attack (it had 1x 30mm and 2x 20mm cannons). It too would probably get an increased cost.

The trouble with guaranteed kills is that stack kills are also enabled. Unstacked formations will get quite large, and I've already had some trouble flying large formations when running into something like a railyard target.

To me, the medium guns already seem very powerful, perhaps a little too powerful. Maybe this is because you've been using low defence aircraft.

 

[JPetroski]

We might just be at a point where you lose the ability to build up the Dortmund Cologne, Dusseldorf, Essen area. This is a shift, but it might just mean that you have to keep your interceptors out of range of my P38s.

Yes, I think that is mainly it. I contested longer than I should have, basically.

My next technology is Escort Fighters III, which gives the best P47. Those P47s drop 2x1000lb bombs, so I can use them for air support, and also as escorts when needed. I might decide that I want the best Jabo fighter, to do better against flak, but I don't know.

Actually they drop 500lb bombs - so I take it I have a documentation error somewhere? I changed it to 500 so there is a reason for the Typhoon/Tempest to make a show. The 500lb is still a pretty strong bomb but you'll definitely (I believe) want some dedicated jabo before embarking for Overlord.

I guess this means that I am about 4 techs from P51s, and so could have them out in about 10 turns. I suppose that would be the sign of the "hang on" point.

Yes, the Mustangs will be a problem for sure. Your bombers will be able to hit anything they want at that point, escorted.

I think that aircraft technology wise, 1st gen P38s, P47s and B17s could achieve the level of air superiority that I have at the moment, though I might need a few more aircraft. So, if Allied research were slowed by a third, then Mustangs would be out around turn 90, while not impacting combat too much as it has occurred thus far.

When we're done with the playtest I'm going to take a look at how you built everything up. I'll share the excel sheet with the results from both of us. We might consider tweaking build times at that point, or conclude that everything is well.

I'll trust your analysis on this one. We can always tweak the shield cost of the 109s, or make the extra unit appear, say, 80% of the time instead of all the time.

I could certainly be wrong but I have no reason to build them currently - getting 2 for 1 would be a reason. If you built the event scalable like you suggested with 80%, it could be a tweak if it is overpowering.

How about this: If Blohm & Voss U-Boot Werke is active, and the Germans have less than 3 wolf packs, wolf packs are created in the Atlantic until there are 3. This would keep a German presence in the Atlantic, but if the Germans really want to focus their efforts, then aircraft production will suffer. I don't think a couple wolf packs would create too much extra micromanagement for the Allies. Since convoys tend to survive a single attack and Sunderlands have a lot of movement, the allied player can simply keep a few sunderlands either in the Atlantic or in westerly airbases, and react to the attacks, rather than going on active search and destroy (if there is a lot of danger, then they will have to take a more proactive role, but then the battle is important anyway).

I think that would work. We could always tweak the exact numbers but 3 sounds about right to start.

Maybe Peenemunde 'researches' each of the techs from pulse jet engines to Vergeltungswaffen 2 for free, say 10 turns per tech, once available. This would mean that the Germans can research other stuff, but still get V1s and V2s, unless the Allies target the facility. If the facility is targeted, the Germans can still do the research elsewhere if they want (or wait for the re-spawn), but then they have to give up other research.

I think that would be a good idea because I seriously doubt that anyone will ever build these units if we don't do this. I am curious how much they'd disrupt you (if any) if they were in the game.

At the moment, I've kept the two 'jailbreak' special missions in the scenario (technically, all but Berlin are still in the game). They do seem like missions for which it is reasonable to be random, and also the stakes do not seem so high as to imbalance things. Should we keep them in the updated version, or scrap them?

They are just more train ones, correct? Yes, I'd say we should keep them.

The trouble with guaranteed kills is that stack kills are also enabled. Unstacked formations will get quite large, and I've already had some trouble flying large formations when running into something like a railyard target.

It might be OK as it is but I've noticed a lot of "duds" lately and the problem with using them from my perspective is that it is a sacrificed unit - I can only move it 1 MP (regardless if a bomber destroyer or 190A8).

To me, the medium guns already seem very powerful, perhaps a little too powerful. Maybe this is because you've been using low defence aircraft.

My medium guns have a very hard time beating your P-47s, and veteran B-17s. I've occassionally managed to shoot down B-17s and B-24s in one shot if the fighter is an ace and the bomber is (presumably) not. I think they're balanced from the Luftwaffe side but am unsure about from the Allied side. How do your P-47s (who fire the light guns, as will the P-51s) generally do against fighters? Again, I don't have many 109s up there.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Actually they drop 500lb bombs - so I take it I have a documentation error somewhere? I changed it to 500 so there is a reason for the Typhoon/Tempest to make a show. The 500lb is still a pretty strong bomb but you'll definitely (I believe) want some dedicated jabo before embarking for Overlord.

The Pedia description for the last P47 is in error.

They are just more train ones, correct? Yes, I'd say we should keep them.

Yes, the trains and railyard events.

I think that would be a good idea because I seriously doubt that anyone will ever build these units if we don't do this. I am curious how much they'd disrupt you (if any) if they were in the game.

Hard to tell. If we implement the firestorm mechanic, then the V1 and V2 could conceivably be used to try to achieve that. I could try setting the disorder flag if an Allied city has a urban center destroyed, since under fundamentalism, the happiness effect of the structures will be irrelevant. It is a way for the Germans to accumulate points, but the Germans already significantly outnumber the Allies in ground forces, so I don't know how useful that would be.

It might be OK as it is but I've noticed a lot of "duds" lately and the problem with using them from my perspective is that it is a sacrificed unit - I can only move it 1 MP (regardless if a bomber destroyer or 190A8).

Maybe that is because there are veteran bombers now? It's more important to have effective combat than convenient movement, so make the change if you think it is necessary. However, the other tactical options are to attack bombers outside of fighter cover, or to have fighters ready to counterattack the counterattacking fighters. Rockets are payload attacks, correct? We could simply reduce the movement cost of that kind of attack, so the unit has a chance to move at least a few squares away.

My medium guns have a very hard time beating your P-47s, and veteran B-17s. I've occassionally managed to shoot down B-17s and B-24s in one shot if the fighter is an ace and the bomber is (presumably) not. I think they're balanced from the Luftwaffe side but am unsure about from the Allied side. How do your P-47s (who fire the light guns, as will the P-51s) generally do against fighters? Again, I don't have many 109s up there.

I seldom use the P-47s in combat. Partly this is because the combat takes place beyond their operating radius, and partly because they have light guns, when I have a medium gun option in the P-38. The P-47 is basically a 'guard' unit for my bombers, and you rarely put an air unit in position to be attacked by them. I do remember from our first playtest that light guns tended to take a few hits to make a kill, while medium guns were better.

I suppose the strong medium guns make the P-38 an effective counterattacker, otherwise the P-38 would have basically no role. Since it is not strong defensively, it runs a significant risk of being killed on the next turn, so the P-38 is worthwhile because if it makes the kill, the attrition favours the Allies, even if it dies next turn.

 

[JPetroski]

The Pedia description for the last P47 is in error.

Sorry about that - I'll fix it.

Hard to tell. If we implement the firestorm mechanic, then the V1 and V2 could conceivably be used to try to achieve that. I could try setting the disorder flag if an Allied city has a urban center destroyed, since under fundamentalism, the happiness effect of the structures will be irrelevant. It is a way for the Germans to accumulate points, but the Germans already significantly outnumber the Allies in ground forces, so I don't know how useful that would be.

I suppose the firestorm mechanism would be something worth going for. It would give me a reason to use bombers for something other than scouts, certainly. Also, the extra forces would be most welcome! If I had a crystal ball, I wouldn't need them, but not knowing precisely where you'll invade means I need to spread out.

Maybe that is because there are veteran bombers now? It's more important to have effective combat than convenient movement, so make the change if you think it is necessary. However, the other tactical options are to attack bombers outside of fighter cover, or to have fighters ready to counterattack the counterattacking fighters. Rockets are payload attacks, correct? We could simply reduce the movement cost of that kind of attack, so the unit has a chance to move at least a few squares away.

That's probably part of it, yes. Here's what I was thinking about doing:

-The Me110 and Me410 currently have two advantages:

1. They don't draw reactive fire from bombers;
2. Their rocket attacks are NOT payload attacks, so they can fire this powerful munition repeatedly.

They currently have two pretty serious disadvantages:

1. They are criminally slow;
2. They are basically defenseless against both fighter reactive attacks and fighter primary attacks.

The 410 doesn't really improve much over the 110. It adds a few MP. I would propose that the 410 fire 2x rockets going forward for each key press (so a true "barrage"). It would still only get to attack once, and would still have all the same disadvantages, but having 2x rockets would be a reason to actually research it and use it (I haven't). In the best case, it could mean you destroy 2 bombers (or stacks), but even if that doesn't work out, the 2 rockets would probably at least be enough to guarantee you kill 1.

As to the 190 series:

The A5 is terrible at high altitude vs. fighters (it does a poor job of reacting to them);
The A8 currently fires a rocket as a payload attack;
The D9 is very good at high altitude and faster than the A5.
The Ta152 is my best propeller fighter and combines the good defenses of a 109 with the good offense of a 190.

The A8, in my mind, isn't differentiated enough right now. It was specifically designed to act as a bomber destroyer. It was better armored, and much more heavily armed than the A5 or D9. This made it a pig vs. fighters, which it is in this game, but it should do better against bombers. I'm thinking maybe we tweak it with your idea of giving them MP for the rocket attack. Perhaps the big deal is the rocket attack doesn't take any MP at all, since it is payload. This shouldn't be too unbalancing but would allow a chance of destroying a bomber right off the bat.

I'm also considering adding a new .ds for the bombers specifically for the A8 that is much less effective, but can still hurt them. Allied fighters would still chew it up.

If both of these changes are done, I would increase the cost of the A8 by at least 10-15 shield rows--I'd aim for 2.5 trains to be necessary for one to be built. I'd like to test it out in our test but I don't want to mess with events to that scale without checking if you're doing something with them.

I seldom use the P-47s in combat. Partly this is because the combat takes place beyond their operating radius, and partly because they have light guns, when I have a medium gun option in the P-38. The P-47 is basically a 'guard' unit for my bombers, and you rarely put an air unit in position to be attacked by them. I do remember from our first playtest that light guns tended to take a few hits to make a kill, while medium guns were better.

I suppose the strong medium guns make the P-38 an effective counterattacker, otherwise the P-38 would have basically no role. Since it is not strong defensively, it runs a significant risk of being killed on the next turn, so the P-38 is worthwhile because if it makes the kill, the attrition favours the Allies, even if it dies next turn.

It sounds like these are working precisely as intended and each has a good use.

What about your Spitfires? It seems that the heavier gun package wasn't enough to give them a reason to be used (why bother when the P-38 guns work just fine vs. 190s and they have better range, right?)

Proposed Solution: Remove the hispanos from Spits and give them the same package as the 38's BUT, now allow them to not draw reactive fire (I'd put them in the same tables as jets and Experten, so only jets and the fastest aircraft could intercept them). I will tell you, this is a big deal and makes my Experten so darned useful (to the point where I wish I had more). The Spitfire range is so limited that I doubt this would be an issue but if they had this ability, you'd probably want to have at least 5-6 squadrons because the idea would be "attack enemy fighters with the Spitfires first and knock a few down so they can't react against other fighters/bombers."

You'd think that at the very least they'd be useful for the D-Day invasion or any time you could engage close by. Also, we'd save a spot by removing the hispano which seems to be overkill at this point. Doing this would give us 4-6 unit slots (I can't remember if we are still using the light and medium shells or if everything fires a barrage).

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I would propose that the 410 fire 2x rockets going forward for each key press (so a true "barrage"). It would still only get to attack once, and would still have all the same disadvantages, but having 2x rockets would be a reason to actually research it and use it (I haven't). In the best case, it could mean you destroy 2 bombers (or stacks), but even if that doesn't work out, the 2 rockets would probably at least be enough to guarantee you kill 1.

That seems reasonable.

The A8, in my mind, isn't differentiated enough right now. It was specifically designed to act as a bomber destroyer. It was better armored, and much more heavily armed than the A5 or D9. This made it a pig vs. fighters, which it is in this game, but it should do better against bombers. I'm thinking maybe we tweak it with your idea of giving them MP for the rocket attack. Perhaps the big deal is the rocket attack doesn't take any MP at all, since it is payload. This shouldn't be too unbalancing but would allow a chance of destroying a bomber right off the bat.

I'm also considering adding a new .ds for the bombers specifically for the A8 that is much less effective, but can still hurt them. Allied fighters would still chew it up.

If both of these changes are done, I would increase the cost of the A8 by at least 10-15 shield rows--I'd aim for 2.5 trains to be necessary for one to be built. I'd like to test it out in our test but I don't want to mess with events to that scale without checking if you're doing something with them.

You can make the changes. If you don't make them before you post your turn, just let me know that you are still working on the events, so I don't make changes.

What about your Spitfires? It seems that the heavier gun package wasn't enough to give them a reason to be used (why bother when the P-38 guns work just fine vs. 190s and they have better range, right?)

Proposed Solution: Remove the hispanos from Spits and give them the same package as the 38's BUT, now allow them to not draw reactive fire (I'd put them in the same tables as jets and Experten, so only jets and the fastest aircraft could intercept them). I will tell you, this is a big deal and makes my Experten so darned useful (to the point where I wish I had more). The Spitfire range is so limited that I doubt this would be an issue but if they had this ability, you'd probably want to have at least 5-6 squadrons because the idea would be "attack enemy fighters with the Spitfires first and knock a few down so they can't react against other fighters/bombers."

Yes, at this point I think that spitfires are mostly outclassed by P-38s and P-47s, depending on the desired role, and their range is too short to make them an effective 'compromise' aircraft that would try to take on both jobs at once.

Preventing reactions against Spitfires might swing the pendulum in the other direction, or be such a threat that you just keep your planes more than 20 squares away from Allied airbases. Increasing the power of spitfires too much might just make it so that Germany has no chance to take the fight to England if she does well, since England could always switch to spitfire production for defence.

I don't have any alternate suggestions at the moment.

Maybe we just keep the hispanos and consider the spitfire the 'counter' to the 109, which might come out to play more if their cost is reduced 50% by Regensburg.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I have an idea for how to differentiate spitfires (and maybe 109s as well).

Let them stay deployed indefinitely by using backspace to clear movement so it doesn't use up the range counter. Basically, if the unit is within its operating radius, let it 'float' there indefinitely. That would mean that once put into position, the player just has to press backspace, and the units can stay there until they need to recover or something. Their 'special ability' would be that 100% of the assigned force can be used at once, instead of 50% or 66%. Part of this would simply be 'quality of life', so the player doesn't have to bother with figuring out the rotation.

If 109s were given this, then a few could just 'loiter' indefinitely around likely targets, without the German player having to shuffle back and forth to nearby airbases.

Maybe this would simply make the spitfire too defensive, like I worried about before, so I would like your thoughts.

 

[JPetroski]

I don't know - one challenge both sides have is timing their attacks so there either is optimal escort cover or it had to depart - the Spits are definitely part of that so I don't know that I want them indefinitely in the air.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Do you want Air to Air rockets to be improved by discovering Tactics? This might address some of the issues with their effectiveness.

I was looking at the strategic bombing code, and it might be easiest to use the strategic bombing mechanism to tie an improvement to the "critical industry" targets rather than building a custom solution, like I did for the historic missions. The application of the bonus could simply check if the appropriate city has the improvement. This would allow the German player to choose when to 'repair' the industry, perhaps waiting a couple turns if continued attacks seem to be forthcoming. We can use counters and modify the 'can build' function if we want to force a delay in construction. The only trouble is if we want to have some targets on the day map and some on the night map (the code expects all targets of a type to appear on the same map), but that can be worked around, I'm sure.

I have a way to make the V1 and V2 a little more useful to the Germans. If an Urban Center is killed in England, make it so the Allies can't get additional points for 3 turns or until they kill a launch site. This would create a 'political' motivation to focus on the rockets, even if ignoring and re-building might be the player's preferred option.

 

[JPetroski]

I have a way to make the V1 and V2 a little more useful to the Germans. If an Urban Center is killed in England, make it so the Allies can't get additional points for 3 turns or until they kill a launch site. This would create a 'political' motivation to focus on the rockets, even if ignoring and re-building might be the player's preferred option.

I like this idea a lot in that it also provides incentive for the Luftwaffe to invest in bombers - anything to stave off some point earnings. I think the turns is better than having to destroy a launch site (as they would be able to tell if a rocket attacked them, they'd know to look for the sites, and they'd want to attack them as that's the only defense against the V2. Bombers, they'd simply want to have fighters held back to defend against).

I was looking at the strategic bombing code, and it might be easiest to use the strategic bombing mechanism to tie an improvement to the "critical industry" targets rather than building a custom solution, like I did for the historic missions. The application of the bonus could simply check if the appropriate city has the improvement. This would allow the German player to choose when to 'repair' the industry, perhaps waiting a couple turns if continued attacks seem to be forthcoming. We can use counters and modify the 'can build' function if we want to force a delay in construction. The only trouble is if we want to have some targets on the day map and some on the night map (the code expects all targets of a type to appear on the same map), but that can be worked around, I'm sure.

If we just get over the desire to have the attack on various dams then we don't need to bother with messing about and this could be used exclusively for the high alt map. The actual historic location of the dams is nowhere near any of the "rivers" that are in the game so it looks awkward anyway.

Do you want Air to Air rockets to be improved by discovering Tactics? This might address some of the issues with their effectiveness.

Yes, please.

 

[Konig15]

Done for attention.

I just installed this earlier in the week, Wednesday. The Scope and ambition of this work inspires me. But here's the basic problem I'm having:
It's turn 20, I'm playing the Germans and I'm SLIBBER knocking the crap out of Britain. Everything is on fire, I'm not fudging around

AI near as I can tell, doesn't know how to use the 'k', and the big nighttime bombing raid on Hamburg hasn't happened yet. AI won't even use the shells command on larger ships, which is free. Flak is working as intended, it seems,

I just put all my U boats on the convoy route by turn three and there's been exactly zero response from the allies. I have sealed up Britain tighter than an asexual nun with a chasity belt. Nothing is getting in.

I hate being forced to do nighttime bombing, just because I don't believe in it, and would rather send all my forces to high altitude bombing. What I mean is I don't like bombing urban centers, it's a waste of time, and everyone should have known it from the Spanish civil war and the Blitz. Bombing the industry and refineries at night would be a nice option, even even if it were harder to hit them, maybe give those terrains on the night map a defensive bonus.

I don't like how limited my city building options are, because I'd like to be able to build up urban areas that don't have cities on them, and there are a lot of such places on the map. Have an idea: why not make the installation terrain be transformable to the railway. Make it take a long time, but it would give more latitude. I know this is mostly historical, but I'd REALLY like the option to research helicopters and build landing craft on the german side, not so much to invade Britain but build air bases in Jersey and so forth. I'd like more cities to work with east of Berlin, and MAYBE, something to do with Ireland, and a way to close off the Italian campaign, maybe some way to pay 15,000 fuel/goal to say, Hitler launches a major offensive and retakes Italy. Expensive but an option.

Me personally, I'm fudging around with the terrian to make it more worth it to have lots of construction crews: I was thinking of giving the hills and forests more resources just to make them less of annoyance.

Also, I'm going to regret saying this but iven everything I've heard about how WWII nukes would have worked in Europe, I'd like to be able to use them, on the high altitude map.

But anything I can do to get the Allies to use the K command? Right now, I'm going to win but being able to let the Allies become competitive again would be great.

 

[JPetroski]

This is a multiplayer only scenario, and is exhaustively well-documented as such

I have to put my kid to bed but will have a more thoughtful response to some of your observations shortly.

 

[Konig15]

This is a multiplayer only scenario, and is exhaustively well-documented as such

I have to put my kid to bed but will have a more thoughtful response to some of your observations shortly.

Oh CRAP! No wonder. Could this be MADE single player? I don't want to do multiplayer ever. I don't like losing, and it's really REALLY hard not to save scum for me.

But man oh man is this scenario awesome. I love the stag bombing element, I love the supply trains, I love the anti partisan operations, I LOVE being able to shell targets at a distance. here is so much awesomesauce in this. It's damn near a new gam and it could be a masterpiece of design.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I just installed this earlier in the week, Wednesday. The Scope and ambition of this work inspires me. But here's the basic problem I'm having:
It's turn 20, I'm playing the Germans and I'm SLIBBER knocking the crap out of Britain. Everything is on fire, I'm not ******* around

I'm glad that you were able to get Test of Time up and running again. The playtest of this scenario has taken up nearly all of my 'civ time' over the past few days.

As JPetroski pointed out, this scenario is designed for multiplayer only. You can poke around and try out some of the features, but, really, you have to be playing against a human to get the idea. At the moment, Allied turns are rather long, so I don't want to commit to a second game. You can take the place of both players, and try things out that way. No fog of war, but you might still get a better idea of what is going on.

There are several difficulties associated with making the AI do stuff for this scenario, not to mention that the scenario isn't actually 'done' yet.

1. K-Attacks. I have an idea of how to achieve this, but this leads to:
2. Make the AI get into position for attacks, especially attacking in sufficient force so that planes are not shot down one by one.
3. Make the AI use escorts where appropriate, and/or position fighters to defend targets from the enemy.
4. Make the AI choose targets intelligently, and maybe change targets if one area is well defended.
5. Make the AI understand ground/sea warfare as implemented in the scenario (i.e. don't sacrifice the irreplaceable units)
6. Make the AI use trains to build planes, or implement a 'cheating mechanism' to achieve production.
7. Go through the ten thousand plus of lines of code to figure out what mechanisms have to be changed for the AI, make the fixes, and then test the fixes.
8. Change the effects of destroying certain targets, to account for the fact that the AI might cheat anyway (e.g. maybe AI doesn't need fuel to attack, so refineries are less significant, unless an AI specific change is made).

I hate being forced to do nighttime bombing, just because I don't believe in it, and would rather send all my forces to high altitude bombing. What I mean is I don't like bombing urban centers, it's a waste of time, and everyone should have known it from the Spanish civil war and the Blitz. Bombing the industry and refineries at night would be a nice option, even even if it were harder to hit them, maybe give those terrains on the night map a defensive bonus.

The industrial targets were hard enough to hit during the daytime. There isn't much direct benefit to targeting civilians in our scenario, but those targets do yield 'points' which progress the 'story.' You can call this a political motivation, if you like. You can get points for attacking factories and refineries also, but, you might find your losses from enemy defences to be higher, just as they were in reality. Attacking civilian targets was a part of the war, regardless of how we might evaluate it in hindsight.

I don't like how limited my city building options are, because I'd like to be able to build up urban areas that don't have cities on them, and there are a lot of such places on the map. Have an idea: why not make the installation terrain be transformable to the railway. Make it take a long time, but it would give more latitude. I know this is mostly historical, but I'd REALLY like the option to research helicopters and build landing craft on the german side, not so much to invade Britain but build air bases in Jersey and so forth. I'd like more cities to work with east of Berlin, and MAYBE, something to do with Ireland, and a way to close off the Italian campaign, maybe some way to pay 15,000 fuel/goal to say, Hitler launches a major offensive and retakes Italy. Expensive but an option.

Me personally, I'm ******* around with the terrian to make it more worth it to have lots of construction crews: I was thinking of giving the hills and forests more resources just to make them less of annoyance.

The scenario is designed mostly around the Air War. The new 'cities' you build represent airbases (and aircraft factories), not new urban centres. You should actually have a fairly large amount of building to do with your existing cities (you will need technologies and 'civilian population' improvements to build the higher level industry buildings). But, the point of the scenario is to see if the German Luftwaffe can influence events enough to delay the Allied victory.

The Germans do start with a Task Force, which they can use to ferry combat units to Britain. They get a few more if they score enough points.

Also, I'm going to regret saying this but iven everything I've heard about how WWII nukes would have worked in Europe, I'd like to be able to use them, on the high altitude map.

Given that the German goal is to hold out as long as possible (unless things go really well), a nuke in our paradigm would sort of signal a 'victory' for the German player. That is, they would have held out until credibly threatened with having everyone killed. I don't see any need for nukes in this scenario, but if I were to program one in, it would not distinguish between the day and night maps.

 

[JPetroski]

There isn't much direct benefit to targeting civilians in our scenario, but those targets do yield 'points' which progress the 'story.' You can call this a political motivation, if you like. You can get points for attacking factories and refineries also, but, you might find your losses from enemy defences to be higher, just as they were in reality. Attacking civilian targets was a part of the war, regardless of how we might evaluate it in hindsight.

I disagree that there is no benefit - the cities that you've completely destroyed (especially early in the scenario) are exceptionally difficult to rebuild because you must first invest funds in the civilian improvements to then build the industrial ones. Early in the scenario, I was able to rebuild improvements if I wanted to (I generally didn't as a strategy because you were generally attacking places that were nearby, thus could be hit repeatedly so I thought it would be a waste). However, Hamburg was never rebuilt and had you done that to any other city outside of your initial range, it probably never would have been, either. When we implement the random fire storm chance, this could get really bad for any particular place.

There are several difficulties associated with making the AI do stuff for this scenario, not to mention that the scenario isn't actually 'done' yet.

1. K-Attacks. I have an idea of how to achieve this, but this leads to:
2. Make the AI get into position for attacks, especially attacking in sufficient force so that planes are not shot down one by one.
3. Make the AI use escorts where appropriate, and/or position fighters to defend targets from the enemy.
4. Make the AI choose targets intelligently, and maybe change targets if one area is well defended.
5. Make the AI understand ground/sea warfare as implemented in the scenario (i.e. don't sacrifice the irreplaceable units)
6. Make the AI use trains to build planes, or implement a 'cheating mechanism' to achieve production.
7. Go through the ten thousand plus of lines of code to figure out what mechanisms have to be changed for the AI, make the fixes, and then test the fixes.
8. Change the effects of destroying certain targets, to account for the fact that the AI might cheat anyway (e.g. maybe AI doesn't need fuel to attack, so refineries are less significant, unless an AI specific change is made).

While I wouldn't say it "can't" be done, I shudder to think about what it would take to make this scenario player as a single player experience from the German perspective. I do think a single player experience is much more easily achievable from an Allied perspective. If I was going to try something like that, I'd:

1. Reduce most German fighter range and MP drastically and make them regular-attack units (pretty sure the AI cheats on range anyway);
2. Invest a lot more time in the zone system that you implemented, make it much more detailed and test it much more thoroughly;
3. Invest a lot of time having "create unit" events (in this case, German fighter defenses or flak bursts) that are based on Allied aircraft are in the zone system. So, if Allied units are in "NW Approach to the Ruhr," AI fighters would appear there on the AI turn to attack them.
4. I'd probably scrap the ground war and make the progress 100% happen due to points so I wouldn't have to worry about the AI being stupid in defense. I'd probably just have all cities in a certain zone (including airfields) change hands as progress is made.

Anyway, something like that.

 

[Konig15]

I disagree that there is no benefit - the cities that you've completely destroyed (especially early in the scenario) are exceptionally difficult to rebuild because you must first invest funds in the civilian improvements to then build the industrial ones. Early in the scenario, I was able to rebuild improvements if I wanted to (I generally didn't as a strategy because you were generally attacking places that were nearby, thus could be hit repeatedly so I thought it would be a waste). However, Hamburg was never rebuilt and had you done that to any other city outside of your initial range, it probably never would have been, either. When we implement the random fire storm chance, this could get really bad for any particular place.



While I wouldn't say it "can't" be done, I shudder to think about what it would take to make this scenario player as a single player experience from the German perspective. I do think a single player experience is much more easily achievable from an Allied perspective. If I was going to try something like that, I'd:

1. Reduce most German fighter range and MP drastically and make them regular-attack units (pretty sure the AI cheats on range anyway);
2. Invest a lot more time in the zone system that you implemented, make it much more detailed and test it much more thoroughly;
3. Invest a lot of time having "create unit" events (in this case, German fighter defenses or flak bursts) that are based on Allied aircraft are in the zone system. So, if Allied units are in "NW Approach to the Ruhr," AI fighters would appear there on the AI turn to attack them.
4. I'd probably scrap the ground war and make the progress 100% happen due to points so I wouldn't have to worry about the AI being stupid in defense. I'd probably just have all cities in a certain zone (including airfields) change hands as progress is made.

Anyway, something like that.

Here;s my biggest conceptual critique of this scenario: you are not Bomber Harris or Herman Goering. You are Albert Speer and whatever his allied counterpart are. You are responsible for war production, but not the conduct of war or strategy, at least not until D-Day, So I think there's opportunity to expand on the possible.

I have ideas. Not goo ones, but ideas.

General:
1. You're gonna have to have separate files for a single-player german and single-player Allied, just put them in new subfolders for ease and no need for flipping things via batch files.
2. You can't make the AI use the k command, yet, so you design around it. Limit 'k' air attacks to two, for balance purposes, and maybe have the lau script cost something so you CAN starve them out. At least enough to keep them from bombing campaigns
3. Get rid of escort fighter and build in their defense into the bomber units. I know I know, it's bullfeathers but the AI is limited. Hell, for Human units, have the cost built-in for things that weren't designed to fly alone, and have the backspace command.
4. Something for Operation Dragoon.
5. Russia should be another faction. Historically the Allies didn't dare use the Russians for bombing staging because the one time they tried Stalin interred the crews and stole the planes. Now I don't call Stalin stupid evil most of the time, but that was really dumb, Really really dumb. Plus it gives the Allied player someone to compete with towards the end of the game. Win the war, lose the peace is something the Allies need to keep in mind. For the Germans, the secondary goal is if the Allies are going to win, make damn sure it's the Allies who occupy everything.
6. Naval bomber is taking up a unit space. Best to combine it and the recon plane, with the bomb being the backspace. Is it historical? No, but you are working with a unit limit.
7. IG Farben is VASTLY underpowered as the Colossus because it ONLY increases trade by one per square with terrain that produces one. Maybe have the entire city limits have rail tracks (rivers) to simulate this.
8. Helicopters, rule of cool yes but yeah.
9. Concentration camps for Ger,any. Doesn't increase production in the city itself but DOES create new industry asset
10. Building "airbase" urban terrain creates a city with Uran infrastructure improvements so you can build it like a normal civilian city, Cause Fun,
11. Tech to use backspace to use rockets as backspace on fighters. Tech should be needed, but fun.
12. AI coastal installations generate shells every turn. Installations automatically build 'e' airfield, That way you attack at your own peril.
13. Give naval units stong attack, not for Human, but AI.
14. Lua script needs to restrict areal recon to investigate only but there needs to be commando units that can sabotage and disrupt production.

Allied:
1. Researching Atom bomb represents a stalemate in Europe, it represents you didn't LOSE, but you sure as hell didn't win It represents political failure. There's no clarification of if the nukes end the Nazis or not, only that whatever the outcome, you've lost the long term.
2. Points to breach Italy, maybe 1,500 or 1,400. Or build a REALLY expensive unit in Foggia, showing how much fuel and resources you're putting in to making a second front against the Germans (second is my preferred).
3. Germans spawn U-Boats in convoy zone every turn based on a number of active shipyards. Keeping them out should be a nightmare.
4. Flak should be more effective to compensate for stupid AI with fighters.
5. Commandos. Disrupt production is occupied in Europe and do scouting and stuff. It probably has to come through the Foggia airfields. Can paradrop.
6. Hit concentration camps. Because F*** Nazis.
7. Alternate way to win, support German resistance, overthrow Hitler. VERY hard and time-consuming to do, considering your bosses, but possible.

German:
1. Massive unit generation of 1,000 bomber raids, and then more so as game goes on. They attack cause they spawn nearby.
2. German only improvements called Other Fronts. As expansive as the Air training program, and represents German resources to other fronts. They should do something with points.
3. Commandos spawn randomly in France. You need to find them and kill them or accept some level of loses.
4. Make freight trains VERY vulnerable to sabotage and bombing.
5. Refineries are VERY weak defense, which doesn't matter fro the Allies because the Americans make more gas than the rest of the world put together so they get something like 500 gold per turn just for showing up, maybe less if you seal up Atlantic.

 

[Konig15]

I'm glad that you were able to get Test of Time up and running again. The playtest of this scenario has taken up nearly all of my 'civ time' over the past few days.

The industrial targets were hard enough to hit during the daytime. There isn't much direct benefit to targeting civilians in our scenario, but those targets do yield 'points' which progress the 'story.' You can call this a political motivation, if you like. You can get points for attacking factories and refineries also, but, you might find your losses from enemy defences to be higher, just as they were in reality. Attacking civilian targets was a part of the war, regardless of how we might evaluate it in hindsight.

The Germans do start with a Task Force, which they can use to ferry combat units to Britain. They get a few more if they score enough points.

Given that the German goal is to hold out as long as possible (unless things go really well), a nuke in our paradigm would sort of signal a 'victory' for the German player. That is, they would have held out until credibly threatened with having everyone killed. I don't see any need for nukes in this scenario, but if I were to program one in, it would not distinguish between the day and night maps.

First, thank you. I can see the power of lua firthand and I'm in awe.

Many questions:
1. What is not finished about this scenario? Is it feature complete with only field testing to go through for the right balance?

2. I'm not criticizing the civilian bombing on moral grounds; I don't need to. I'm not interested because other than 'points' and the fact that wilder sau is not immediately there, so I can't do anything with those bombers anyway. But if I AM Bomber Harris or someone he works for, the RAF is going to high altitude daylight bombing, because I want those F**** refineries down and I want them down NOW.
That said I wish there was a thing with the Germans whether or not to use slave labor or how much to feed them. Like have a total advance of 2,200 Calories a Day, and Operation Reinhard is Stupid, where the Armentment minister decides the in the interest f Endsieg to get the Nazis to stop doing stupid stuff....for now. They feed the slave labor because they want to keep them alive. I like pragmatic villainy.'

3. I downloaded the scenario from the link posted at the beginning of the thread. There's no unit called task force and Germany doesn't start out any landing craft.

4. tomic weapons in the 40s and 50s wouldn't work like that: too low of a yield, European cities are WAY less flammable and more durable than Japanese cities. It would be high altitude Industry and Refinery destroying thing for sure, but it's not a wundweraffe any more than the V-2 or the MP-44. Change the world, absolutely. But not in the 1940s. Plus.....you shoot down the atomic bomber....and suddenly Germany has a nuke to reverse engineer or use on Britain. Funtimes.

But I see what you're talking about. I figure you just need the AI rebalanced around non-Lau stuff, move to events, that sort of thing. And maybe make them stupidly powerful on the offensive so even a few of them getting in can wrech your horsehocky real quick. Oh and flak, need lots of flak generated that can reach high altitude. As of turn 20, High altitude is WAY less dangerous. Fighters can be shot down, flak is is something that makes my gut wrnech whenever I press the k button.

 

[JPetroski]

Well, first of all, Konig, I'd like to thank you for your enthusiasm! It's great to see someone take a look at our scenario and offer feedback though I think you're looking at a horribly outdated version per this quote right here:

3. I downloaded the scenario from the link posted at the beginning of the thread. There's no unit called task force and Germany doesn't start out any landing craft.

To address some of your points.

7. IG Farben is VASTLY underpowered as the Colossus because it ONLY increases trade by one per square with terrain that produces one. Maybe have the entire city limits have rail tracks (rivers) to simulate this.

This is a good idea, I can have the city that starts with I.G. Farben already have roads (fuel dump) on the terrain. Thanks for pointing this out.

2. German only improvements called Other Fronts. As expansive as the Air training program, and represents German resources to other fronts. They should do something with points.

The Germans already need to build quartermaster improvements because the "corruption" in the base game now represents other front's siphoning off resources. I'm not sure I'm happy with the term "quartermaster" but the basic idea you provided is already in the game.

4. Make freight trains VERY vulnerable to sabotage and bombing.

At some point I need to pick Garfield's brain about this as while I may have missed it, I haven't noticed him attacking any of these in the scenario. They're quite vulnerable (they only have a defense of 4, which is very weak for this scenario).

1. What is not finished about this scenario? Is it feature complete with only field testing to go through for the right balance?

We have a couple features to add, and need to figure out a way to address the late game crawl. Poor Garfield has been dreaming up different quality of life mechanisms daily it seems to try and cut down his turn times, and they're still too long.

That said I wish there was a thing with the Germans whether or not to use slave labor or how much to feed them. Like have a total advance of 2,200 Calories a Day, and Operation Reinhard is Stupid, where the Armentment minister decides the in the interest f Endsieg to get the Nazis to stop doing stupid stuff....for now. They feed the slave labor because they want to keep them alive. I like pragmatic villainy.'

9. Concentration camps for Ger,any. Doesn't increase production in the city itself but DOES create new industry asset

In my much younger years I made a scenario called "Anstieg" that featured Concentration Camps. I will never do that again.

Thanks for your feedback!