Over the Reich: Single Player - Development Thread

[CurtSibling]

I am confident that with ToTPP, Lua and the skills of the designers here, we could create an amazing BoB CIV2 experience, overcoming any previous engine limits.

Is this perhaps the basis for a combined effort to create a world-class scenario?

 

[JPetroski]

It was really the unlimited scope and the resulting complexity, which if I can be really frank, made it too much work and quite confusing. The scenario tackles too many things, imho. Daylight and night bombing, tactical air in France, air defense of Britain, anti-submarine operations and a land campaign in France. It's all a bit overwhelming, and I really just didn't know where to start.

I would definitely be interested in playing a single player version if it was more focused. Maybe just the daylight strategic bombing over Germany

I don't think either @Prof. Garfield or I would disagree with you on its complexity. I believe both of us would freely admit that it was very much a "let's see if we can do **this** and **this** and **that thing over here** type project. Insanely useful, I'd argue, for breaking lua wide open and I'd like to think if Civ lasted another 20 years there'd be internet archaeologists looking at it as one of those scenarios that really showcased just how powerful lua was. On the other hand, OTR is not Civ2, and that can be a problem.

With that said, part of being a pioneer means making things more complex than they have to be. Many of the concepts that were difficult to understand in OTR or required a detailed explanation work completely behind the scenes in Hinge of Fate and other titles, for example. Unless you're a true "min max" type player who really wants to know how everything works, I think with a few years and projects under both of our belts, we could refine it and make it much less overwhelming for the actual player.

As for focus:

-I'd like to make it a scenario where the absolute only thing you move on any given turn is an air unit. Wipe the Battle of the Atlantic out (it was fun but not really great for this). This eliminates a ton of busy work.
-Flak is present, but it's distributed in a different way. In Gary Grigsby's Bombing the Reich one gets "movement points" for all your assets on any given turn. So there are flak units but you don't actually move them about the map. You choose where to send them from a menu and you can only move so much on any given turn. Flak simply fires by an event when enemy aircraft get to close or something along those lines. TBD, but you aren't doing anything with it. This eliminates a ton of busy work.
-Trains that are fully automated. They can be attacked or disrupted by the Allies but the Germans don't have to do anything with them. They either arrive or they don't.
-Wipe out the ground campaign. While I will admit it was fun guessing where someone would land - save that for a HoF MP game. In this, the events happen and perhaps can be influenced to happen sooner or later depending on how you do.

-Basically make it so the only thing you need to do is figure out what research path to take, what assets to build, and what to do with your aircraft every turn, like any other Civ game.

With that said, I don't think I'd be open to getting rid of the Bomber Command side of things nor the Tactical element, though the tactical element would probably influence how far along the game allows cities to change hands. This is a scenario about the European air war and these were huge parts of it.

I would think, by nature of the subject matter, the Battle of Britian I had discussed with @JPetroski awhile wouldn't be as involved.

Honestly I would think BoB could be built very much concurrently because there isn't very much from OTR that wouldn't also be present in BoB. It's effectively the same scenario just with earlier planes and a different protagonist. Frankly, building the events in such a way that they could work for either scenario would also mean they are events that could work for any scenario.

I wouldn't be against doing a Battle of Britain scenario first. From a programming perspective, it would probably be less complicated than OTR, so it would let us test out some ideas and solve some problems without having to build the entire OTR before playtesting. However, the non-programming work for OTR is done (except for 'data' to feed the program). What's the state of Nemo's Battle of Britain scenario? If it's mostly complete except for events, then it could make an attractive project.

See above regarding my thoughts for concurrent development. Don't let the fact that the "non-programming work" is done give you pause. If it's best for that to start afresh (and with 189 unit slots and all the techs available, it may well be) then that's what I can do. I just wish there was a larger full Europe map (I don't think there's a gigamap Europe) because we actually have the space for the Mediterranean campaign Air Campaign as well now.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Honestly I would think BoB could be built very much concurrently because there isn't very much from OTR that wouldn't also be present in BoB. It's effectively the same scenario just with earlier planes and a different protagonist. Frankly, building the events in such a way that they could work for either scenario would also mean they are events that could work for any scenario.

I'd be fine building the two scenarios concurrently.

-I'd like to make it a scenario where the absolute only thing you move on any given turn is an air unit. Wipe the Battle of the Atlantic out (it was fun but not really great for this). This eliminates a ton of busy work.

I agree the Battle of the Atlantic can go. In game it largely used separate resources from the Air campaign. That eliminates the value of the port facilities. Maybe they could just be worth a lot of points to destroy, if we keep that system.

I would note that letting the German player attack shipping did give some reason for fighting in the early part of the game, when Allied fighter range is limited.

-Flak is present, but it's distributed in a different way. In Gary Grigsby's Bombing the Reich one gets "movement points" for all your assets on any given turn. So there are flak units but you don't actually move them about the map. You choose where to send them from a menu and you can only move so much on any given turn. Flak simply fires by an event when enemy aircraft get to close or something along those lines. TBD, but you aren't doing anything with it. This eliminates a ton of busy work.

Perhaps the player could choose one of a handful of "policies" (e.g. protect Refineries, protect cities, etc.). Newly produced flak would be allocated based on the policy, and some existing flak would be moved to better fit the new policy. All movement would be done programmatically, so the player wouldn't have to micromanage flak placement, just choose a broad policy.

In any case, we stopped having flak attack by the last version of OTR; it just reacts to attacks. That was definitely a good change.

-Wipe out the ground campaign. While I will admit it was fun guessing where someone would land - save that for a HoF MP game. In this, the events happen and perhaps can be influenced to happen sooner or later depending on how you do.

The "tactical" and "strategic" combat was largely separate from what I remember. Dogfights were at high altitude, so the Hurricane/Typhoon/Tempest line couldn't much influence that, and the flexibility of the medium bombers didn't make up for their weakness. I think the only dual purpose fighter (at least for the allies) was the P47 line, since it was a good escort, and could be used in the ground attack role.

Perhaps the way to deal with the situation is to make the production of "tactical" aircraft necessary for progression of events on the ground (or delaying them in the case of Germany). "Dual use" aircraft can be temporarily assigned to tactical duties to speed up progress (or, maybe, progress sometimes needs temporary increases). This "assignment" doesn't really make sense for Germany, since a fighter could reasonably defend against both strategic and tactical attacks. I don't know exactly what to do, but I think it is important to have some consideration for the use of tactical aircraft. I guess there is also the issue of attacking aircraft on the ground to keep.

We can do without dozens of Tempests being marshalled to attack fortifications or divisions.

-Trains that are fully automated. They can be attacked or disrupted by the Allies but the Germans don't have to do anything with them. They either arrive or they don't.

If we're getting rid of the rest of the "tactical" combat, do we really need trains? We could just move shields to airfields directly, or have aircraft produced in cities, and teleported to airfields when complete. The shield movement could simply stop (or be reduced) if rail lines are cut.

With that said, I don't think I'd be open to getting rid of the Bomber Command side of things nor the Tactical element, though the tactical element would probably influence how far along the game allows cities to change hands. This is a scenario about the European air war and these were huge parts of it.

I think bomber command has to stay. I remember that in one playtest, I had to get some points to meet a reinforcement deadline, so I made the decision to attack at night. That functioned an awful lot like political pressure to "do something", even if "something" wouldn't have much military value.

If we wipe out the surface campaign, then there is little to do with the tactical aircraft. But, as I discussed a bit above, it doesn't seem like we can just eliminate the tactical aspect of the scenario.

See above regarding my thoughts for concurrent development. Don't let the fact that the "non-programming work" is done give you pause. If it's best for that to start afresh (and with 189 unit slots and all the techs available, it may well be) then that's what I can do. I just wish there was a larger full Europe map (I don't think there's a gigamap Europe) because we actually have the space for the Mediterranean campaign Air Campaign as well now.

Well, I didn't want to pressure you into building a new scenario when the original idea was to "fix" a scenario that already exists. If you're interested in a ground-up build/rebuild I'm fine with that, but most of it would be your work.

 

[techumseh]

OK, that's still going to be a lot, particularly when you have to program a semi-intelligent AI controlled campaign. Which will be the human controlled side, and which the AI controlled side?

 

[JPetroski]

Perhaps the player could choose one of a handful of "policies" (e.g. protect Refineries, protect cities, etc.). Newly produced flak would be allocated based on the policy, and some existing flak would be moved to better fit the new policy. All movement would be done programmatically, so the player wouldn't have to micromanage flak placement, just choose a broad policy.

Yeah something like that would be fine too. That would actually help the AI too since I suppose we could check what was being concentrated on/weak and then move flak accordingly.

The "tactical" and "strategic" combat was largely separate from what I remember. Dogfights were at high altitude, so the Hurricane/Typhoon/Tempest line couldn't much influence that, and the flexibility of the medium bombers didn't make up for their weakness. I think the only dual purpose fighter (at least for the allies) was the P47 line, since it was a good escort, and could be used in the ground attack role.

Perhaps the way to deal with the situation is to make the production of "tactical" aircraft necessary for progression of events on the ground (or delaying them in the case of Germany). "Dual use" aircraft can be temporarily assigned to tactical duties to speed up progress (or, maybe, progress sometimes needs temporary increases). This "assignment" doesn't really make sense for Germany, since a fighter could reasonably defend against both strategic and tactical attacks. I don't know exactly what to do, but I think it is important to have some consideration for the use of tactical aircraft. I guess there is also the issue of attacking aircraft on the ground to keep.

I think we just need more targets at the tactical level that are meaningful that we couldn't have before due to unit slot limitations. Also I intend to have "ground forces" units that have a benefit to attacking/weakening but just you wouldn't need to actually conduct a campaign with them. In Gary Grigsby's (GG from now on I guess) you had, at times, targeting limitations. So, when Avalanche was going on or Overlord was being prepped, the tactical fleet would only be allowed to target railyards, army units, etc.

There were also political targets like U-Boat pens, Sub bases, and V-1 launch sites that from time to time one would have to attack.

My argument would be to have things like army units and such political targets not be destroyed, but take damage of course. Then we count how much damage the totality of certain units have, perhaps in certain zones, to move the campaign map along. So, the tactical fleet would influence how fast the Allies advance up Italy, for example, by how badly mauled the Axis forces in the region are, giving them purpose. There's an advantage to advancing because one, it will reduce the number of cities the Germans have, and two it brings more and more targets into range.

In my mind the tactical fleet attacks the German army, the trains (if we have them, but they were such a prevalent target its hard to stomach removing them), V1 sites, airfields, and maybe some other targets we didn't have last time (dams?)

Well, I didn't want to pressure you into building a new scenario when the original idea was to "fix" a scenario that already exists. If you're interested in a ground-up build/rebuild I'm fine with that, but most of it would be your work.

I mean honestly I think it's necessary. This was built when the base ToTPP offering was far different than now. Also I just feel like it's all such spaghetti at this point that starting fresh would probably be easier on both of us than figuring out where what is.

Ideally I'd like to make everything less complex.

-I think we should keep radar and probably just automate it each turn without any need for a key. Wipe it at the end (I do think radar should be tied to some improvement now and just be where it is for the entire game, though perhaps not all cities start with it built--we had allowed the key press so it could be deployed).

-I think flak should be automated both in where it goes, and how it fires. Probably the only flak unit to move manually would be the flak train, if we keep trains.

-Get rid of the Battle of the Atlantic. Have it be a political target instead (basically you either attack these on your own early/fairly often or you get stuck targeting them because you can't bomb anything else for a bit)

-Simplify combat somehow... Probably add a little "H" to units that are good at high alt on the icon too to help folks and not make everyone know what each aircraft does.

-Probably use the counter system for fuel instead of money. Honestly with counters we could tie in things for like armaments, electricity (which was a huge target we didn't have in last game).

-I think the game should start at the Schweinfurt Raid and probably with the bomber stream already in the air, on its way to it. This is a pretty good start too because it's right before Avalanche (if I can include Italy) and also the Americans will have many bombers available but only 4-6 squadrons of P-47 (I'd have to check how many exactly).

OK, that's still going to be a lot, particularly when you have to program a semi-intelligent AI controlled campaign. Which will be the human controlled side, and which the AI controlled side?

There's no way for it to not be a lot but the goal will at least to make it something you can pick up and play where you aren't wondering "am I forgetting something" or feel like you need to read a 40 page manual and memorize it to have a chance. There was a lot of stuff in the old version you had to attend to. If we can at least make it so you're basically moving units, prioritizing production, and picking the research path, I think it's manageable for the player.

The goal would be to make it playable from either side. The irony is it might be the first scenario where it's actually harder to get the AI defender to play appropriately than the aggressor. It should be pretty easy to chart 8th Air Force raids (one could even have many historic raids

 

[Civinator]

There are a lot of interesting concepts in this discussion. One setting that was not listed yet, is a strict separation between day- and night combat, per example first all day combat and than all night combat.

 

[JPetroski]

There are a lot of interesting concepts in this discussion. One setting that was not listed yet, is a strict separation between day- and night combat, per example first all day combat and than all night combat.

I dont think that's really possible for a game that runs 2 years with OTR but for Battle of Britain, it might be achievable.

 

[Patine]

I had an ancient board wargame called (wait for it) "The Battle of Britain". It consisted of 5 weeks. In each turn, all aircraft would conduct their missions in a series of alternating turns and then return to base, ending the week. There were probably 15 or 20 turns in each week. At the end of the 5th week, the game was ended and the score calculated. This might be a possible framework for a scenario.

Was that the one by TSR in a series of related board games in the late '80's, early '90's, incluidng Europe Aflame (a game about Europe in WW2 - I was always annoyed about the lack of a Pacific analog), Red Storm Rising and the Hunt for Red October (land combat in and around Germany and naval combat in the North Atlantic, respectively, hypothetically, between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, loosely based on the two Tom Clancey novels), and A Line in the Sand (early '90's Middle Eastern diplomacy and warfare, put out in honour of the Persian Gulf War, but also having later Arab-Israeli War scenarios, and a six-player diplomatic game - which was great fun)?

 

[techumseh]

Was that the one by TSR in a series of related board games in the late '80's, early '90's, incluidng Europe Aflame (a game about Europe in WW2 - I was always annoyed about the lack of a Pacific analog), Red Storm Rising and the Hunt for Red October (land combat in and around Germany and naval combat in the North Atlantic, respectively, hypothetically, between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, loosely based on the two Tom Clancey novels), and A Line in the Sand (early '90's Middle Eastern diplomacy and warfare, put out in honour of the Persian Gulf War, but also having later Arab-Israeli War scenarios, and a six-player diplomatic game - which was great fun)?

No. 1968, Renwal - a real classic. I still have it in a box in my basement somewhere.

The Battle of Britain

Germany's aerial campaign against the British Isles in WWII, Aug-Sep 1940.

boardgamegeek.com

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I think we just need more targets at the tactical level that are meaningful that we couldn't have before due to unit slot limitations. Also I intend to have "ground forces" units that have a benefit to attacking/weakening but just you wouldn't need to actually conduct a campaign with them. In Gary Grigsby's (GG from now on I guess) you had, at times, targeting limitations. So, when Avalanche was going on or Overlord was being prepped, the tactical fleet would only be allowed to target railyards, army units, etc.

There were also political targets like U-Boat pens, Sub bases, and V-1 launch sites that from time to time one would have to attack.

My argument would be to have things like army units and such political targets not be destroyed, but take damage of course. Then we count how much damage the totality of certain units have, perhaps in certain zones, to move the campaign map along. So, the tactical fleet would influence how fast the Allies advance up Italy, for example, by how badly mauled the Axis forces in the region are, giving them purpose. There's an advantage to advancing because one, it will reduce the number of cities the Germans have, and two it brings more and more targets into range.

This makes sense.

In my mind the tactical fleet attacks the German army, the trains (if we have them, but they were such a prevalent target its hard to stomach removing them), V1 sites, airfields, and maybe some other targets we didn't have last time (dams?)

If we're keeping tactical combat, I'm fine with keeping trains. If they're automated anyway, maybe we could have each individual train cost less, so an attack isn't so damaging. IIRC, we couldn't see what a city was building when we made OTR, so now we can assign trains to destinations based on what will complete construction.

-I think we should keep radar and probably just automate it each turn without any need for a key. Wipe it at the end (I do think radar should be tied to some improvement now and just be where it is for the entire game, though perhaps not all cities start with it built--we had allowed the key press so it could be deployed).

I think the player (at least the human player) should be able to choose radar locations in OTR (maybe not Battle of Britain). I suggest a city improvement (a wonder might actually work for what I want) that, when completed, produces a radar station on a nearby "installation" tile, and then is removed from the city so it can be built again. This way, the player has some control over where the stations are placed. For the AI, I'd just assign a location by algorithm, and not worry about forcing the AI to choose a location. On second thought, if there is a "good" way to place radar stations, maybe they should all be placed by algorithm, and make one less thing for the human to micromanage.

-I think flak should be automated both in where it goes, and how it fires. Probably the only flak unit to move manually would be the flak train, if we keep trains.

Did you ever build a flak train? As far as I remember, the mobility wasn't particularly useful, especially compared to the cost increase. If we do flak "policy", maybe the trains would respond more quickly to changes.

-Get rid of the Battle of the Atlantic. Have it be a political target instead (basically you either attack these on your own early/fairly often or you get stuck targeting them because you can't bomb anything else for a bit)

If we want to simplify, the Battle of the Atlantic is, indeed, a reasonable thing to remove. I suppose this means no carrier based fighter escorts, which I guess is reasonable, since I don't believe they were used historically. However, it does mean that Germany doesn't have the option of basing tactical aircraft in France to directly interdict convoys.

-Simplify combat somehow... Probably add a little "H" to units that are good at high alt on the icon too to help folks and not make everyone know what each aircraft does.

We could probably use icons for a lot of "skills". Maybe have two versions of the icon (gold/silver?) to designate "good" vs "mediocre" abilities?

I can think of the following skills:
-- Low altitude dog fighting
-- High altitude dog fighting
-- Low altitude bombing
-- High altitude bombing
-- Night fighter Radar (or, possibly just good at night fighting)

-Probably use the counter system for fuel instead of money. Honestly with counters we could tie in things for like armaments, electricity (which was a huge target we didn't have in last game).

We should be careful about expanding the target list. That adds both complexity to the game (unless you want to have several targets that do the same thing, but are just cosmetically different), and requires us to come up with mechanics to tie the targets into the game. I think that a target should have a natural, fairly straightforward mechanic to go with it.

On that topic, I think we need to change the effect of aircraft factories. I don't remember being particularly interested in building or destroying them, which is a bit odd given that this is a game about aircraft. I'm inclined to think that aircraft factories should be necessary for the construction of aircraft, and probably take the place of industry as the source of shields. Or, maybe, you need both industry and aircraft factories to get shields.

What would I do with industry, then? Industry would influence the fight on the ground. For example, instead of healing units automatically (which can be stopped by setting the 'moved' flag for all units each turn), healing would be limited based on industry. I guess I could be clever and tie in railroad links between units and factories in order to make targeting the rail system more valuable. For that matter, German sub bases could prevent Allied healing. I'd do this automatically, so the player doesn't have to choose anything or understand the details.

-I think the game should start at the Schweinfurt Raid and probably with the bomber stream already in the air, on its way to it. This is a pretty good start too because it's right before Avalanche (if I can include Italy) and also the Americans will have many bombers available but only 4-6 squadrons of P-47 (I'd have to check how many exactly).

That's as reasonable a time as any to start the scenario.

 

[JPetroski]

I can't respond to everything right now but wanted to provide this for you to chew on.

Basically, the effect of the strategic bombing campaign should be one of three outcomes:

1. Reduce the # of sorties the Luftwaffe can fly (either reduce overall MP, or maybe ground some planes, or something);
2. Reduce the effectiveness of the ground forces/flak (abstractly, but basically if you take out their supplies with the strategic bombers, they won't heal as fast when the tactical bombers hit them, and if we rework how D-Day and advancing works to basically be if the ground forces are healthy or not, you can see why you'd target their supplies);
3. Reduce the replacement or repair of Luftwaffe aircraft (either they don't heal as fast, or they aren't produced as quickly).

Basically, fighters destroy other fighters (and air superiority is one requirement for D-Day/advancement).
Tactical aircraft weaken ground units (and weakening them to a certain point in regions is a requirement for D-Day/advancement).
Strategic bombers make doing both of the above easier and more effective.

I think most of this can be done behind the scenes. Complex for us, but not really for the player.

Below are some screen shots from the GG game I keep mentioning, specifically a forum where one of the players broke down how the industry generally works. I'm not saying we necessarily need all of these targets, but, it is a good visual to think of how perhaps there could be different pathways one might employ.

We also don't need all, or any, of these to necessarily be tied to improvements if we don't want to. Given that we can prevent units from being completely destroyed and that we can (I believe) count the hitpoints of any given unit or all units of a particular type, we could have a pretty interesting situation where for the most basic example if someone exclusively targeted the electrical grid and managed to bring it to a certain level, everything else below it would produce slower or not at all.

This in my mind is way to have complexity behind the scenes that really isn't that complicated for the player.

Basically, on turn 1, if a P-47 engaged an Me109, the Me109 would be the strongest possible counterpart because it still had a fully functioning strat system behind it (fuel, replacements, parts, etc.)

Likewise, if a Typhoon attacked a Panzer Division, the Panzer Division would heal almost instantly because it too still had the fully functioning strat system behind it. Even if you knocked it down to a sliver of health, it might restore instantly the next turn or at least a great deal more than it would if its supply system were destroyed.

For us this is complicated but for the player, it's really a simple matter of "I need to figure out my strategy of what targets I want to attack" and "I need to stop the Allies from successfully bombing my targets." Perhaps there's a menu that pops up at the start of each turn just to show the player where they stand overall. Perhaps the Germans have perfect information about their systems and the Allies only have good information if they have recon birds near targets?

(Source) - also I'd encourage anyone who is interested in this scenario to go check out this thread in detail and see if that game is something you also might enjoy.

 

[JPetroski]

If we're keeping tactical combat, I'm fine with keeping trains. If they're automated anyway, maybe we could have each individual train cost less, so an attack isn't so damaging. IIRC, we couldn't see what a city was building when we made OTR, so now we can assign trains to destinations based on what will complete construction.

The way we used trains last time was to have them disband and create aircraft at airfields. I still like the idea of not having aircraft take off from actual cities (at least to enter combat), but I don't know if this means they should be built at airbases like last time. We have more options than before, I suppose. I'd like to keep trains as a meaningful target somehow, but also probably automate them for both players, while making there be a legitimate reason to want to defend them. I'm not really sure what to do with them, all I know is that their destruction was a primary focus before and after D-Day and a huge part of the reason D-Day was successful (by cutting off most supply to the Wehrmacht).

What I'm kind of leaning towards is that trains "heal" units and buildings either in a certain zone around them, or as they reach destinations, but I don't know how possible this is.

We should be careful about expanding the target list. That adds both complexity to the game (unless you want to have several targets that do the same thing, but are just cosmetically different), and requires us to come up with mechanics to tie the targets into the game. I think that a target should have a natural, fairly straightforward mechanic to go with it.

What would I do with industry, then? Industry would influence the fight on the ground. For example, instead of healing units automatically (which can be stopped by setting the 'moved' flag for all units each turn), healing would be limited based on industry. I guess I could be clever and tie in railroad links between units and factories in order to make targeting the rail system more valuable. For that matter, German sub bases could prevent Allied healing. I'd do this automatically, so the player doesn't have to choose anything or understand the details.

Well, I think there should be certain targets that are required to build units since folks are pretty used to that lua mechanic by now. But there might be other targets that impact how quickly the units are built or repair, as you mentioned above.

Thinking through the chart I posted above, maybe an aircraft factory is required to build aircraft, and armaments factory is required to build flak, but the stuff higher up the chain directly controls how fast either of these can be built or if they will heal. I think targets that are tied to something being capable of being produced are tied to a unit/improvement link as in the old game and can flat out be destroyed, but stuff that just controls how fast they can be built or will heal is perpetually on the map, prevented from being completely destroyed, and we count up the total hitpoints to base how fast things work.

On that topic, I think we need to change the effect of aircraft factories. I don't remember being particularly interested in building or destroying them, which is a bit odd given that this is a game about aircraft. I'm inclined to think that aircraft factories should be necessary for the construction of aircraft, and probably take the place of industry as the source of shields. Or, maybe, you need both industry and aircraft factories to get shields.

Since we can tell what cities are producing, and can change it now, I suppose a city that's building an aircraft but has its aircraft factory destroyed would stop producing that aircraft and instead would maybe convert over to rebuilding the aircraft factory?

I think the player (at least the human player) should be able to choose radar locations in OTR (maybe not Battle of Britain). I suggest a city improvement (a wonder might actually work for what I want) that, when completed, produces a radar station on a nearby "installation" tile, and then is removed from the city so it can be built again. This way, the player has some control over where the stations are placed. For the AI, I'd just assign a location by algorithm, and not worry about forcing the AI to choose a location. On second thought, if there is a "good" way to place radar stations, maybe they should all be placed by algorithm, and make one less thing for the human to micromanage.

Well, we can do that if you'd like. On the other hand, at the start of the scenario, there's would be enough radar stations out there to completely cover Europe. I'm almost thinking it could be a good "perpetual" unit that only works with certain hitpoints, so the Allies would have to keep expending resources to keep it down if they wanted it down. Basically if your concern is there would not be enough coverage that wouldn't be an issue in my mind.

Did you ever build a flak train? As far as I remember, the mobility wasn't particularly useful, especially compared to the cost increase. If we do flak "policy", maybe the trains would respond more quickly to changes.

I didn't and honestly it might just make more sense to have flak trains be a tech players can research to make their trains a bit more resilient.

If we want to simplify, the Battle of the Atlantic is, indeed, a reasonable thing to remove. I suppose this means no carrier based fighter escorts, which I guess is reasonable, since I don't believe they were used historically. However, it does mean that Germany doesn't have the option of basing tactical aircraft in France to directly interdict convoys.

I mean we could have some sort of "perpetual" unit at sea that exists that Germany could target if they wanted to. Perhaps have a few in the Atlantic (what's left of it in the map below) and the Mediterranean that represents Allied supply. Maybe these "move" to the channel when D-Day occurs. The same concept of "how many hitpoints are left" would apply to Allied reinforcements. Hitler was, after all, obsessed with bombers, wanted everything to be a bomber. Maybe a German strategy could be to invest in taking on the shipping routes this way?

We could probably use icons for a lot of "skills". Maybe have two versions of the icon (gold/silver?) to designate "good" vs "mediocre" abilities?

I can think of the following skills:
-- Low altitude dog fighting
-- High altitude dog fighting
-- Low altitude bombing
-- High altitude bombing
-- Night fighter Radar (or, possibly just good at night fighting)

Yeah something like that would likely work. At the very least differentiating what can perform well at high-alt vs. what can't is important, in my mind.

That's as reasonable a time as any to start the scenario.

The added benefit is the RAF had a major raid on Peenemunde the same night, so we can have all sorts of action on turn 1 accompanied with helpful hints that explain the game mechanics. Then, Avalanche is only a few weeks (so however many turns) away which could make a good tutorial for establishing the conditions to allow a naval invasion, as well as "political targets" of maybe not being able to hit industry with the Mediterranean forces right away until Avalanche happens.

This is just @Dadais Europe map enlarged and changed to basically what we would want. This is the other option besides the map we are currently using. Obviously I'd need to heavily edit it but I thought I'd show what it looks like. This is pretty much as big as I can make Europe if we want the totality of the air war, which I do think would be fun.

 

[JPetroski]

Just going back and forth with map scope. I don't know if the full Europe really gives the chance for great air battles like in the present map.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

all I know is that their destruction was a primary focus before and after D-Day and a huge part of the reason D-Day was successful (by cutting off most supply to the Wehrmacht).

I know there is some famous footage of attacks on trains from gunfire recordings, but do you know if there were a lot of missions trying to destroy trains on the move, or were they mostly targeted in railyards?

I suppose it doesn't matter too much. If it is fun to look for trains and attack them, we can include that mechanic anyway.

Since we can tell what cities are producing, and can change it now, I suppose a city that's building an aircraft but has its aircraft factory destroyed would stop producing that aircraft and instead would maybe convert over to rebuilding the aircraft factory?

That's one way to do it. Another way would be to leave the production order, but just reduce shield production.

Alternatively, instead of destroying the aircraft factory, an attack on it could reduce the number of shields in the shield box, if the city is producing a unit (since nearly all units are aircraft now).

Well, we can do that if you'd like. On the other hand, at the start of the scenario, there's would be enough radar stations out there to completely cover Europe. I'm almost thinking it could be a good "perpetual" unit that only works with certain hitpoints, so the Allies would have to keep expending resources to keep it down if they wanted it down. Basically if your concern is there would not be enough coverage that wouldn't be an issue in my mind.

OK, if stations give 100% coverage at the start of the game, then the player doesn't need to place them.

I mean we could have some sort of "perpetual" unit at sea that exists that Germany could target if they wanted to. Perhaps have a few in the Atlantic (what's left of it in the map below) and the Mediterranean that represents Allied supply. Maybe these "move" to the channel when D-Day occurs. The same concept of "how many hitpoints are left" would apply to Allied reinforcements. Hitler was, after all, obsessed with bombers, wanted everything to be a bomber. Maybe a German strategy could be to invest in taking on the shipping routes this way?

The added benefit is the RAF had a major raid on Peenemunde the same night, so we can have all sorts of action on turn 1 accompanied with helpful hints that explain the game mechanics. Then, Avalanche is only a few weeks (so however many turns) away which could make a good tutorial for establishing the conditions to allow a naval invasion, as well as "political targets" of maybe not being able to hit industry with the Mediterranean forces right away until Avalanche happens.

If we're starting later in the war, maybe shipping route attacks by aircraft are not that important and don't need to be included. On the other hand, having some "how many hitpoints are left" targets in the ocean or channel would give the Germans something to do if they successfully defend the mainland. Or, as you say, it could require an investment to make the attacks.

Having some action at the start, in order to have tutorial information is probably a good idea, but I worry starting the scenario with a double raid could be overwhelming. It could be fine, I guess. You use aircraft in combat, so you understand what they do as you order replacements.

This is just @Dadais Europe map enlarged and changed to basically what we would want. This is the other option besides the map we are currently using. Obviously I'd need to heavily edit it but I thought I'd show what it looks like. This is pretty much as big as I can make Europe if we want the totality of the air war, which I do think would be fun.

Having the Romanian oil on the map could be nice, but a map this size would require modelling progress on the Eastern Front and the Balkans, as well as in the West. Maybe that isn't a huge issue, if we have a progress mechanic anyway.

Just going back and forth with map scope. I don't know if the full Europe really gives the chance for great air battles like in the present map.

This is a good point. Without stacking, we need more tiles in order to be able to have bomber formations. If the map covers too large an area, there is no longer an attack on an individual target, but rather a general attack, which chooses the target at the last moment.

 

[Dadais]

Just going back and forth with map scope. I don't know if the full Europe really gives the chance for great air battles like in the present map.

A valid point indeed.
Here's the base I could provide you for comparaison, tile supposed to represent about a 30km-side square

 

[JPetroski]

I know there is some famous footage of attacks on trains from gunfire recordings, but do you know if there were a lot of missions trying to destroy trains on the move, or were they mostly targeted in railyards?

So the book I have (Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 by Williamson Murray available on kindle for a few bucks if anyone is interested) does state that as of May 20, there were actual missions with a primary objective of "running trains and open line" - and while there had been a steady decrease in tonnage reaching the Western Front since the railyards were attacked starting in February, this is when the number of loaded wagons became extremely scarce.

This is a good point. Without stacking, we need more tiles in order to be able to have bomber formations. If the map covers too large an area, there is no longer an attack on an individual target, but rather a general attack, which chooses the target at the last moment.

Yeah, I think we need to just stick with the current map. It's a shame but really the air war over Western and Northern Europe is the primary purpose and I think the map we currently have works well for that. We also have things like ranges and such working properly with it, and it's built. There's a little more space than we need in the Atlantic now but I don't think that really hurts anything. I'd probably still have the "perpertual" Allied units closer to England so we don't have to bother with aircraft carriers etc.

Having some action at the start, in order to have tutorial information is probably a good idea, but I worry starting the scenario with a double raid could be overwhelming. It could be fine, I guess. You use aircraft in combat, so you understand what they do as you order replacements.

Well, we'd probably do it the same was as how this scenario starts with Operation Millennium -- the bombers are near Schweinfurt and Peenemunde, the former with considerable battle damage already, and they can only just reach the targets and then head home. So, it should be pretty straight forward.

OK, if stations give 100% coverage at the start of the game, then the player doesn't need to place them.

Yeah by this time in the war, they were all over the place in the west and north. If we aren't having the Balkans (where they were scarcer) it'll be one of those things where they have full coverage until they don't.

 

[JPetroski]

A valid point indeed.
Here's the base I could provide you for comparaison, tile supposed to represent about a 30km-side square
View attachment 673781

Absolutely gorgeous - every time I look at this map I say to myself "I really need to remake Hinge of Fate" haha.

 

[Civinator]

Here is the map of Gary Grigsby´s famous game U.S.A.A.F. and how he managed the US airbases in Tunisia, Libya and later Italy:

 

[Civinator]

Btw.: My great uncle at that time was part of the JG 54 and mostly shot down B-24 bombers with his small Me 109 until he was shot down, too. After the war he worked as a dentist. Here you can see a picture of his Me 109 and here you can read something about him.

Here is another picture of a Me 109 fighter he did fly - not in colour and not in such a good condition:

Bf 109G serial number 19821 emergency landed near Nykøbing Falster 9/10 1943

Airwar over Denmark 1943

www.flensted.eu.com

 

[JPetroski]

Btw.: My great uncle at that time was part of the JG 54 and mostly shot down B-24 bombers with his small Me 109 until he was shot down, too. After the war he worked as a dentist. Here you can see a picture of his Me 109 and here you can read something about him.

Here is another picture of a Me 109 fighter he did fly - not in colour and not in such a good condition:

Bf 109G serial number 19821 emergency landed near Nykøbing Falster 9/10 1943

Airwar over Denmark 1943

www.flensted.eu.com

I have been meaning to build an Me109 for awhile now - when I do, I'll build it in your uncles colors