I plan to have a combat log screen. Initially all combat results were saved, but in the end of the game there was too much data and the saving was taking more than 2 minutes at the end of turn... So the log will be incomplete, but will contains combat info from at least a few turn backs.
R.E.D. WWII: Concepts & Suggestions
- Thread starter Gedemon
- Start date
I plan to have a combat log screen. Initially all combat results were saved, but in the end of the game there was too much data and the saving was taking more than 2 minutes at the end of turn... So the log will be incomplete, but will contains combat info from at least a few turn backs.
thecivinator58
Warlord
Is there any way to keep playing the game after you "win" (all vital enemy cities have fallen)? Because I really want to continue my game.
kennyboy000
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 23
After I removed the cache I have the feeling my loading screens take really long, is that possible?
I have always gotten the usual option to continue the game.
I think that in the game (alt history) germany can chose "Do you want to go to war against Poland" then England can choose to go to war against germany and after germany and italy fall england gets an option "Do you want to attack Russia"
I also think personell trading should be possible!
I also think personell trading should be possible!
With the version 37, we have to be next to an harbor to embark our units, but is it possible to embark near an enemy harbor ?
Because I saw Italian units embark from Albania but Tirana was under Greek control... so it's strange.
And I think french AI has serious problems when I'm playing UK.
First, they don't move their units in Algeria and Syria (because of the "embark from harbor" probably) during the whole game, and sometimes, Paris doesn't produce anything during many turns...
But strangely, greeks seem to be more effective.
So is it possible to boost our allies ?
Because I saw Italian units embark from Albania but Tirana was under Greek control... so it's strange.
And I think french AI has serious problems when I'm playing UK.
First, they don't move their units in Algeria and Syria (because of the "embark from harbor" probably) during the whole game, and sometimes, Paris doesn't produce anything during many turns...
But strangely, greeks seem to be more effective.
So is it possible to boost our allies ?
AI units on a "route" keep the embarkation promotion until they reach their objective plot. sometime they disembark near it, and can't reach it before another unit is on the plot. when this happens, they can reembark. I need to correct the whole route code to be more efficiency.
@T_KCommanderbly: have you tried your version with alternate history on ?
@T_KCommanderbly: have you tried your version with alternate history on ?
T_KCommanderbly
Prince
No I havn't (I don't think ive played alternative history on any scenario yet), is there a problem with it?
I've not tested, but from looking at the code, I think it will fire at the date you've set whatever the situation (ie already at war).
Don't try to correct it, I like the idea, but I will try to remove the hardcoded part, and prevent all function to be called every turn, using a table or something like the diplo event. Well, it should be linked to those events anyway.
I also want to use an independent screen, so we can ask for confirmation from the player (continue war with France after Germany have captured Paris if you play Italy for example), that will also remove the need of a fake wonder to pop-up the screen.
But don't worry, I like it, it will be in
Don't try to correct it, I like the idea, but I will try to remove the hardcoded part, and prevent all function to be called every turn, using a table or something like the diplo event. Well, it should be linked to those events anyway.
I also want to use an independent screen, so we can ask for confirmation from the player (continue war with France after Germany have captured Paris if you play Italy for example), that will also remove the need of a fake wonder to pop-up the screen.
But don't worry, I like it, it will be in
g0ldfinger
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 19
@T_K apart from France being the most aggressive AI in the game declaring war on anything that borders with it (well either germany or italy but hey) bye turn 3 and well the usual know convoy crash soon after...
This is an awesome mod, nicely done and going nicer with time considering the amount and quality of the numerous updates. I've some experience in modding ww2 armies (albeit at a lesser scale) so I know it's a huge, painful job you've done.
I've not read every single post of the thread so sorry if there are some redundancies in these comments.
I-Tanks
Here are some glitches I noticed:
Preliminary remark: British tanks need some love, there are lots that could get upgrades from 2pdr to 6pdr guns etc. the way the German Panzers get upgrades. Besides a lot of them were used by the Red army too - and to a lesser extent by the Free French but probably not beyond company level so not in the current scope?
1) The British early tanks (cruiser and infantry alike until 1942 and the 6 pounder guns of the crusader III/valentine VIII) had no heavy explosive (HE) ammunitions at all, so they are currently overpowered against infantry! The infantry was supposed to do job, not the tanks. They were also vulnerable to AT guns because of their shorter range (both types) and thin armour (in the case of cruisers), to the point that it was a common German tactic to draw British cruisers towards hidden AT guns in the desert... There were some close support variants of the cruisers and Matilda II, but they probably wouldnt make much of a difference with at division level (they were for HQ units iirc).
This probably means you do indeed need a specific class for the Matilda II (as mentioned somewhere), and one for British cruisers (except the crusader Mk III) or you'd end with BT-2/BT-7 having a penalty against infantry they might not deserve... besides the difference in armour thickness isn't deserving the British cruiser MkIII compared to the BT7 (30mn max v 22mn for the later BT7s). It might be of lesser import compared to the lack of HE ammunition but it's worth keeping in mind too. I suggest having them in the different classes anyway.
2) The Valentine was not a light tank, the armour thickness was only slightly less than the Matilda (but 10mm thicker than say the PkwIII), it had the same gun however so it shouldn't get a penalty against armour. Same class as Matilda but a little faster or new class too? I suppose the Valentine VIII and its QF6 gun could go to the same tank class as the Pz III except they were way slower (24 km/h v 40km/h). New class or that can be done with the various sql files?
3) The Hotchkiss 35 tanks had some antitank issues (and the R35 since it had the same gun). Conversely the Tetrach (same class) had the same gun as most British tanks of the time (the QF2 that also equipped the Cruisers until the QF6 replaced it) but very thin armour (14mm max compared to the H35 max 34-40mm) so they also shouldn't be in the same class (early tank destroyer?). As the L6/40 had similar armour to the H35 and a 20mm gun I guess you can keep these two in the same class... but the Panzer 35(t) had thinner armour (25mm) and a better gun... than the French/Italian ones so shouldn't be in the same class either (but probably in the same as the Tetrach).
4) Only the earlier T-26 had only machine guns, so you should add an upgraded T-26 model 1933 with the 45mm AT gun and put it in the same class as Pz II/H39... but the M3 had significantly more armour than both (51mm), and the H39 (34mm) significantly more than the Pz II (14mm) so the M3 (and later the M5 Stuart) might deserve a separate class (again!)
5) Should there really be light tanks divisions after 1940? Except maybe the Red Army early nobody really used them as divisions (or rather brigades I think), maybe they should be there only for scenarios (like Stalingrad) or as companies (battalion, regiment?) for recce/éclairage/aufklärung no idea of the Russian term sorry - (even more so after 1943 when western allies scrapped light tank regiments)?
6) Though certainly not light or cavalry, the Pz IV was not designed to fight tanks, but to support other tanks against infantry. In the mod it's currently the king of the hill in 1940 which certainly wasn't true! Its main gun was no match for the frontal armour of the Matilda 2, B1bis or even the Somua, and both British 2pdr and French 47 mm could penetrate its armour (well provided the Luftwaffe wasn't around of course). Maybe the Pz IV E or F deserves being introduced after the fall of France, with its upgraded armour and for the F, upgraded gun?
7) Speaking of German tanks, the German armoured forces of 1940 were mostly (2/3) made of Pz I and II (and to a lesser extend of Skoda 35(t) rather than Pz III/IV, so it would be nice to prevent the German AI building of so many III and IV... from what I've seen so far it's more like a 50/50 ratio and almost no infantry (which is really not realistic see below). The German Heer had concentrated its armour far more than the French, which certainly deserves a bonus in game terms, but right now there are too many III/IV and
8) There were 10 Panzerdivisionen in the Battle of France and 4 Divisions Cuirassées, 3 Divisions Légère Mécaniques and 1 British Armoured Division, compared to 137 divisions in the Heer, and 149 divisions in the allied forces in may 1940. The current overwhelming importance and numbers of armoured divisions is a little reminiscent of 60 years old clichés
Though ww2 saw the emergence of motorised warfare even the German armoured forces werent fully motorised until 1941 (and not any more in 1944/5), there were still many hooves and feet, and many more than wheels and tracks for most of the war and fronts! More infantry (and more infantry love)!
II- Infantry (shorter!)
1) Infantry need some love, you can't compare a 1940 French or British infantry with a 1944 one, the AT capabilities were really boosted by the bazookas or PIAT, and air supremacy made AA capacity really secondary for instance. I think (I don't have most of my sources at hand though) that they were better armed too, with more machineguns and light machine guns and AT/AA capabilities at company level (and all the more so at division level). Same for the German infantry after 1942 with the panzerfaust, I don't know for the Russian apart from the not so unsuccessful of Molotov cocktails both by the Red Army and the Finnish infantry.
Conversely in 1940, a good chunk of the French infantry was made of reserve units with old equipment and lesser AT capabilities than other units, and Infanterie de forteresse units probably didnt have any since the AT capability was fixed.
2) A much bigger proportion of the 1944 western troops were motorised which wasn't the case of the 1940 infantry (even the German one, far from it) so movement might be worth having a look into. I know you have mechanised infantry in mind, but motorised is also a big change in ww2.
3) The paratroopers and their 42 combat value are really too tough compared to the basic infantry 36.
IV- Convoys (shorter!)
1) Convoy bug: after (literally) hours of testing and some amateurish coding (I insist on that though I'll gladly send you what I've done) I'm quite sure this had to do with map complexity on the north america/europe and probably world 1936 maps (though I haven't tested it as extensively and I want to check the infamous Bombay convoy). I created some waypoints (one in the sea near Gibraltar, one NE of Miami, one near Iceland) and I've not seen a single crash since. I suspect you might want to look more closely into moveunit/isatdestination/moveconvoy too.
2) I've seen crashes with embarked troops when they return to their initial position and then try to go back to their disembark point (if the UK player manages to stem the German horde from Seelöwe for instance).
On the 1942 Europe map it seems the submarine search script might be a crash cause too (never seen it after a crash in the Lus log on the Europe or NA/Europe map).
3) I've not noticed the AI building much subs to hunt convoys, or subs hunting convoys much, in any scenario? Bug or work in progress?
V- Gameplay - ground warfare
1) Though it makes sense that very high silhouette tanks like the M3 have no defensive bonus at all (they couldn't fight hull-down after all), is the same true of the more compact tanks? or even lower silhouette Stugs and such?
2) Tanks are too powerful (at least the 1940 ones), the German success wasn't that much the Blitzkrieg (which is for the most part a mix of myth and after action propaganda there's a lot of recent research and books on that, including German ones, and testimonies from the last living actors like August von Kageneck's Lieutenant de Panzer (no English translation that I know of sadly) and Blizkrieg-Legende from Karl-Heinz Frieser are two examples) as the first use of combined arms (and lessons learned from Spain and Poland), and namely a very good use of air and artillery as a way to soften the way for the tanks (or infantry at Sedan and other places). It worked quite well for the German as long as they had air and artillery supremacy, then the tide turned... On paper the Luftwaffe didn't have such an advantage but I've read somewhere that about a third of the Armée de l'Air planes weren't in flight order. The LW lose a third of its planes in the battle of France but they used them better tactically and strategically, like during the Sedan offensive: nearly 1500 planes (of which 600 bombers and 250 dive bombers, and more than 1200 sorties on a narrow 4km wide target where the German infantry later crossed the river Meuse) in what was the war's most concentrated use of air power, which resulted in the start of the Anglo-French collapse.
3) Even 1940 infantry could severely harm tanks when dug in, during the Battle of Amiens (20 may to 8 june 1940) two infantry divisions stopped 3 PzD for 15 days and destroyed about 200 tanks or the unsuccessful Abbeville counterattack where the 4°DCR and 2°DCR with some of the 1st armoured division where stopped by 57. Infanterie Division in one of the two biggest tank attacks before Kursk (the other was Hannut)...
4) River crossings under fire are really too easy. The penalty for the attacker should really be huge (even worse for tanks than for infantry), as it was during ww2 even when the US army came with its amazing logistical capability (crossing the Moselle in 1944 was one of the main operational aim of a full US Corps (XX) and they were desperately looking for bridges). Same for amphibious assaults, it took the Allied nearly two years, the Dieppe raid and its disaster and then North Africa to do it right, with considerable amount of investment into planning, equipment, combined armed tactics etc.
V- Gameplay - air-to-ground warfare
1) It's a little harsh to grant planes the same bonus against tanks in a forest and tanks in a plain. You had no IR detectors or laser guiding in 1939-1940 obviously so you relied a lot on visual and line of sight!
2) Medium bombers might need some love, there were hugely used during ww2 and until 1943 quite successfully (after that the fighter could carry almost as much bombs and allied air superiority made them almost useless for the Germans, but for the first part of the war they were much more used (and far more numerous) than dive bombers. Currently they are almost useless except against infantry on the move.
V- Gameplay - air-to-sea
1) Isn't the fighter range over sea a little too long? If I recall correctly it was one of the issues of the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Brittain?
2) It seems destroyers and cruisers take a lot of damage from planes, which sounds suspicious, even more so if you consider that battleships and battlecruisers appear to take less damage, which is not what actually happened during the war where the battleship proved very vulnerable to air attacks.
VII- Oob
Appart from the aforementioned things pertaining to the British tanks, I've noticed the French oob fully misses the Armée française de la Libération (from august 1943), so mostly American equipped French soldiers (iirc they had M4A1 and M4A2 Sherman, some M4A3, M10 Wolverines, M7 Priests for the 3 Divisions Blindées, P40 Warhawks in Tunisa, Spitfires for Overlord, I'm most certainly missing some, but it makes the French option really difficult in all scenarios. I recently saw some pictures of Somua S35 that were used by the Free French in Tunisia from November 1942 too. And British troops also used a lot of Shermans in the 1944 armoured regiments.
That was long. Once more, great work!
I've not read every single post of the thread so sorry if there are some redundancies in these comments.
I-Tanks
Here are some glitches I noticed:
Preliminary remark: British tanks need some love, there are lots that could get upgrades from 2pdr to 6pdr guns etc. the way the German Panzers get upgrades. Besides a lot of them were used by the Red army too - and to a lesser extent by the Free French but probably not beyond company level so not in the current scope?
1) The British early tanks (cruiser and infantry alike until 1942 and the 6 pounder guns of the crusader III/valentine VIII) had no heavy explosive (HE) ammunitions at all, so they are currently overpowered against infantry! The infantry was supposed to do job, not the tanks. They were also vulnerable to AT guns because of their shorter range (both types) and thin armour (in the case of cruisers), to the point that it was a common German tactic to draw British cruisers towards hidden AT guns in the desert... There were some close support variants of the cruisers and Matilda II, but they probably wouldnt make much of a difference with at division level (they were for HQ units iirc).
This probably means you do indeed need a specific class for the Matilda II (as mentioned somewhere), and one for British cruisers (except the crusader Mk III) or you'd end with BT-2/BT-7 having a penalty against infantry they might not deserve... besides the difference in armour thickness isn't deserving the British cruiser MkIII compared to the BT7 (30mn max v 22mn for the later BT7s). It might be of lesser import compared to the lack of HE ammunition but it's worth keeping in mind too. I suggest having them in the different classes anyway.
2) The Valentine was not a light tank, the armour thickness was only slightly less than the Matilda (but 10mm thicker than say the PkwIII), it had the same gun however so it shouldn't get a penalty against armour. Same class as Matilda but a little faster or new class too? I suppose the Valentine VIII and its QF6 gun could go to the same tank class as the Pz III except they were way slower (24 km/h v 40km/h). New class or that can be done with the various sql files?
3) The Hotchkiss 35 tanks had some antitank issues (and the R35 since it had the same gun). Conversely the Tetrach (same class) had the same gun as most British tanks of the time (the QF2 that also equipped the Cruisers until the QF6 replaced it) but very thin armour (14mm max compared to the H35 max 34-40mm) so they also shouldn't be in the same class (early tank destroyer?). As the L6/40 had similar armour to the H35 and a 20mm gun I guess you can keep these two in the same class... but the Panzer 35(t) had thinner armour (25mm) and a better gun... than the French/Italian ones so shouldn't be in the same class either (but probably in the same as the Tetrach).
4) Only the earlier T-26 had only machine guns, so you should add an upgraded T-26 model 1933 with the 45mm AT gun and put it in the same class as Pz II/H39... but the M3 had significantly more armour than both (51mm), and the H39 (34mm) significantly more than the Pz II (14mm) so the M3 (and later the M5 Stuart) might deserve a separate class (again!)
5) Should there really be light tanks divisions after 1940? Except maybe the Red Army early nobody really used them as divisions (or rather brigades I think), maybe they should be there only for scenarios (like Stalingrad) or as companies (battalion, regiment?) for recce/éclairage/aufklärung no idea of the Russian term sorry - (even more so after 1943 when western allies scrapped light tank regiments)?
6) Though certainly not light or cavalry, the Pz IV was not designed to fight tanks, but to support other tanks against infantry. In the mod it's currently the king of the hill in 1940 which certainly wasn't true! Its main gun was no match for the frontal armour of the Matilda 2, B1bis or even the Somua, and both British 2pdr and French 47 mm could penetrate its armour (well provided the Luftwaffe wasn't around of course). Maybe the Pz IV E or F deserves being introduced after the fall of France, with its upgraded armour and for the F, upgraded gun?
7) Speaking of German tanks, the German armoured forces of 1940 were mostly (2/3) made of Pz I and II (and to a lesser extend of Skoda 35(t) rather than Pz III/IV, so it would be nice to prevent the German AI building of so many III and IV... from what I've seen so far it's more like a 50/50 ratio and almost no infantry (which is really not realistic see below). The German Heer had concentrated its armour far more than the French, which certainly deserves a bonus in game terms, but right now there are too many III/IV and
8) There were 10 Panzerdivisionen in the Battle of France and 4 Divisions Cuirassées, 3 Divisions Légère Mécaniques and 1 British Armoured Division, compared to 137 divisions in the Heer, and 149 divisions in the allied forces in may 1940. The current overwhelming importance and numbers of armoured divisions is a little reminiscent of 60 years old clichés
Though ww2 saw the emergence of motorised warfare even the German armoured forces werent fully motorised until 1941 (and not any more in 1944/5), there were still many hooves and feet, and many more than wheels and tracks for most of the war and fronts! More infantry (and more infantry love)!II- Infantry (shorter!)
1) Infantry need some love, you can't compare a 1940 French or British infantry with a 1944 one, the AT capabilities were really boosted by the bazookas or PIAT, and air supremacy made AA capacity really secondary for instance. I think (I don't have most of my sources at hand though) that they were better armed too, with more machineguns and light machine guns and AT/AA capabilities at company level (and all the more so at division level). Same for the German infantry after 1942 with the panzerfaust, I don't know for the Russian apart from the not so unsuccessful of Molotov cocktails both by the Red Army and the Finnish infantry.
Conversely in 1940, a good chunk of the French infantry was made of reserve units with old equipment and lesser AT capabilities than other units, and Infanterie de forteresse units probably didnt have any since the AT capability was fixed.
2) A much bigger proportion of the 1944 western troops were motorised which wasn't the case of the 1940 infantry (even the German one, far from it) so movement might be worth having a look into. I know you have mechanised infantry in mind, but motorised is also a big change in ww2.
3) The paratroopers and their 42 combat value are really too tough compared to the basic infantry 36.
IV- Convoys (shorter!)
1) Convoy bug: after (literally) hours of testing and some amateurish coding (I insist on that though I'll gladly send you what I've done) I'm quite sure this had to do with map complexity on the north america/europe and probably world 1936 maps (though I haven't tested it as extensively and I want to check the infamous Bombay convoy). I created some waypoints (one in the sea near Gibraltar, one NE of Miami, one near Iceland) and I've not seen a single crash since. I suspect you might want to look more closely into moveunit/isatdestination/moveconvoy too.
2) I've seen crashes with embarked troops when they return to their initial position and then try to go back to their disembark point (if the UK player manages to stem the German horde from Seelöwe for instance).
On the 1942 Europe map it seems the submarine search script might be a crash cause too (never seen it after a crash in the Lus log on the Europe or NA/Europe map).
3) I've not noticed the AI building much subs to hunt convoys, or subs hunting convoys much, in any scenario? Bug or work in progress?
V- Gameplay - ground warfare
1) Though it makes sense that very high silhouette tanks like the M3 have no defensive bonus at all (they couldn't fight hull-down after all), is the same true of the more compact tanks? or even lower silhouette Stugs and such?
2) Tanks are too powerful (at least the 1940 ones), the German success wasn't that much the Blitzkrieg (which is for the most part a mix of myth and after action propaganda there's a lot of recent research and books on that, including German ones, and testimonies from the last living actors like August von Kageneck's Lieutenant de Panzer (no English translation that I know of sadly) and Blizkrieg-Legende from Karl-Heinz Frieser are two examples) as the first use of combined arms (and lessons learned from Spain and Poland), and namely a very good use of air and artillery as a way to soften the way for the tanks (or infantry at Sedan and other places). It worked quite well for the German as long as they had air and artillery supremacy, then the tide turned... On paper the Luftwaffe didn't have such an advantage but I've read somewhere that about a third of the Armée de l'Air planes weren't in flight order. The LW lose a third of its planes in the battle of France but they used them better tactically and strategically, like during the Sedan offensive: nearly 1500 planes (of which 600 bombers and 250 dive bombers, and more than 1200 sorties on a narrow 4km wide target where the German infantry later crossed the river Meuse) in what was the war's most concentrated use of air power, which resulted in the start of the Anglo-French collapse.
3) Even 1940 infantry could severely harm tanks when dug in, during the Battle of Amiens (20 may to 8 june 1940) two infantry divisions stopped 3 PzD for 15 days and destroyed about 200 tanks or the unsuccessful Abbeville counterattack where the 4°DCR and 2°DCR with some of the 1st armoured division where stopped by 57. Infanterie Division in one of the two biggest tank attacks before Kursk (the other was Hannut)...
4) River crossings under fire are really too easy. The penalty for the attacker should really be huge (even worse for tanks than for infantry), as it was during ww2 even when the US army came with its amazing logistical capability (crossing the Moselle in 1944 was one of the main operational aim of a full US Corps (XX) and they were desperately looking for bridges). Same for amphibious assaults, it took the Allied nearly two years, the Dieppe raid and its disaster and then North Africa to do it right, with considerable amount of investment into planning, equipment, combined armed tactics etc.
V- Gameplay - air-to-ground warfare
1) It's a little harsh to grant planes the same bonus against tanks in a forest and tanks in a plain. You had no IR detectors or laser guiding in 1939-1940 obviously so you relied a lot on visual and line of sight!
2) Medium bombers might need some love, there were hugely used during ww2 and until 1943 quite successfully (after that the fighter could carry almost as much bombs and allied air superiority made them almost useless for the Germans, but for the first part of the war they were much more used (and far more numerous) than dive bombers. Currently they are almost useless except against infantry on the move.
V- Gameplay - air-to-sea
1) Isn't the fighter range over sea a little too long? If I recall correctly it was one of the issues of the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Brittain?
2) It seems destroyers and cruisers take a lot of damage from planes, which sounds suspicious, even more so if you consider that battleships and battlecruisers appear to take less damage, which is not what actually happened during the war where the battleship proved very vulnerable to air attacks.
VII- Oob
Appart from the aforementioned things pertaining to the British tanks, I've noticed the French oob fully misses the Armée française de la Libération (from august 1943), so mostly American equipped French soldiers (iirc they had M4A1 and M4A2 Sherman, some M4A3, M10 Wolverines, M7 Priests for the 3 Divisions Blindées, P40 Warhawks in Tunisa, Spitfires for Overlord, I'm most certainly missing some, but it makes the French option really difficult in all scenarios. I recently saw some pictures of Somua S35 that were used by the Free French in Tunisia from November 1942 too. And British troops also used a lot of Shermans in the 1944 armoured regiments.
That was long. Once more, great work!
Thanks for the feedback and suggestion
I'll make a short answer, but do not hesitate to bring back some of you specific points when needed (when testing the *coming soon* beta for example)
I think we've already talked on this topic or the development topic about the Matilda (I & II) and PanzerIV placement in the class table to name, and while I'm still reluctant to make major change to the whole table, I've already moved around a few unit and added a line for infantry tanks (see the spreadsheet, green are units in game, grey are added for next version, yellow are moved, grey classes are new, no color are to be added, not listed means no 3D models available)
I'm not fixed on the stats and use of the infantry tanks line, and as I've said earlier, I'm not satisfied with the French H-35/H-39 and R-35/R-40 placement.
Gameplay is my major concern here, while keeping "realism" as far as we can. On that subject, the organization is of course a problem, "Divisions" and "Regiments" are just representation, I don't want to switch to a true strategic level, and abandon some units representation because they were not used as full Division or even Regiment/Brigade (light tanks, heavy tanks/tank destroyers/assault guns, ...)
The planned beta will be the occasion to also test some change in stats and promotions to lower the difference between tanks and infantry. un-promoted units are pretty balanced, for example in my last game my IS-2 where not pushing through Italian infantry in the Balkans as I hopped them to do... but once promoted at level 3 the difference is too important, especially on flat land.
I've said above that I don't want to make major change to the whole classes table, but the new initialization code for units allow each unit type to have it's own stats, promotions and description texts, that means "one unit classes" are possible, there are already a few (KV-2) and surely the early version of the PzIV will be one of those.
About infantries, unlocking some promotions with projects may be possible, and would represent more modern equipments as the war advance.
About river crossing, initially the penalty was far higher than the current one, but the problem is the AI, it would require modification in the DLL code to prevent it to waste many moves over rivers (the anti-suicide attack option is partially working, but the AI lose a turn for an unit each time it's triggered...). It's doable, but not easy.
(and time to sleep, will try to answer more precisely tomorrow to the other points)
I'll make a short answer, but do not hesitate to bring back some of you specific points when needed (when testing the *coming soon* beta for example)
I think we've already talked on this topic or the development topic about the Matilda (I & II) and PanzerIV placement in the class table to name, and while I'm still reluctant to make major change to the whole table, I've already moved around a few unit and added a line for infantry tanks (see the spreadsheet, green are units in game, grey are added for next version, yellow are moved, grey classes are new, no color are to be added, not listed means no 3D models available)
I'm not fixed on the stats and use of the infantry tanks line, and as I've said earlier, I'm not satisfied with the French H-35/H-39 and R-35/R-40 placement.
Gameplay is my major concern here, while keeping "realism" as far as we can. On that subject, the organization is of course a problem, "Divisions" and "Regiments" are just representation, I don't want to switch to a true strategic level, and abandon some units representation because they were not used as full Division or even Regiment/Brigade (light tanks, heavy tanks/tank destroyers/assault guns, ...)
The planned beta will be the occasion to also test some change in stats and promotions to lower the difference between tanks and infantry. un-promoted units are pretty balanced, for example in my last game my IS-2 where not pushing through Italian infantry in the Balkans as I hopped them to do... but once promoted at level 3 the difference is too important, especially on flat land.
I've said above that I don't want to make major change to the whole classes table, but the new initialization code for units allow each unit type to have it's own stats, promotions and description texts, that means "one unit classes" are possible, there are already a few (KV-2) and surely the early version of the PzIV will be one of those.
About infantries, unlocking some promotions with projects may be possible, and would represent more modern equipments as the war advance.
About river crossing, initially the penalty was far higher than the current one, but the problem is the AI, it would require modification in the DLL code to prevent it to waste many moves over rivers (the anti-suicide attack option is partially working, but the AI lose a turn for an unit each time it's triggered...). It's doable, but not easy.
(and time to sleep, will try to answer more precisely tomorrow to the other points)
A couple of thoughts,
First, civilian tile improvements (with a nonmilitary unit, like an engineer);
Manufactory construction
Fortification construction
Airfield construction
Farm construction
The current role of different types of howitzers is nice, but it deserves an additional turn-of-theory.
Allowing a great general, and allowing that general to be 'developed' would mean for greater flexibility, playability, and roleplaying. Benefits would include things like adding 1 or 2 extra move points to all adjacent tiles, increasing defensibility, attack, or specialty stuff like movement through desert or attack bonus in rough terrain etc.
Furthermore, the airpower's 'range' is not scaled correctly. The 1939-1945 map seems to be fairly well balanced in terms of range and the appropriate scale, but the larger world maps use the same range per tile while the tiles represent somewhere between 2 and 3 times as much, resulting in incredibly asymmetrical utility of air power. Doubly so for paratroopers.
After having progressed through middle-game of a few of the 1936 world and finished many 1939euros, i have a few ideas about some basic way to introduce resources but it'd be pretty crude compared with the sophistication and depth of the rest of the game mechanics, and it'd be a nightmare to balance.
Finally, and this is the easiest i think to change, i'd like it a lot if alt-history meant no special rules for permanent alliances, and no forced declarations of war. England able to invade france, italy able to attack germany. Alt history meaning you right it. Furthermore, it could include some kind of 'personality randomizer' so that some AI civ's want to be allies more than others, and things might progress a little bit off-piste.
First, civilian tile improvements (with a nonmilitary unit, like an engineer);
Manufactory construction
Fortification construction
Airfield construction
Farm construction
The current role of different types of howitzers is nice, but it deserves an additional turn-of-theory.
Allowing a great general, and allowing that general to be 'developed' would mean for greater flexibility, playability, and roleplaying. Benefits would include things like adding 1 or 2 extra move points to all adjacent tiles, increasing defensibility, attack, or specialty stuff like movement through desert or attack bonus in rough terrain etc.
Furthermore, the airpower's 'range' is not scaled correctly. The 1939-1945 map seems to be fairly well balanced in terms of range and the appropriate scale, but the larger world maps use the same range per tile while the tiles represent somewhere between 2 and 3 times as much, resulting in incredibly asymmetrical utility of air power. Doubly so for paratroopers.
After having progressed through middle-game of a few of the 1936 world and finished many 1939euros, i have a few ideas about some basic way to introduce resources but it'd be pretty crude compared with the sophistication and depth of the rest of the game mechanics, and it'd be a nightmare to balance.
Finally, and this is the easiest i think to change, i'd like it a lot if alt-history meant no special rules for permanent alliances, and no forced declarations of war. England able to invade france, italy able to attack germany. Alt history meaning you right it. Furthermore, it could include some kind of 'personality randomizer' so that some AI civ's want to be allies more than others, and things might progress a little bit off-piste.
Ok, time for a long answer
I./
There are 19 tanks that will be available for the U.K. (20 with the Firefly, 21 with the M-3 Grant, this last one coming only from convoy). That's already a lot more compared to other nations: Germany has 11 (13 with panzer 35t and 38t), France has 12, U.S.A have 11, U.S.S.R. have 12...
Adding more variations (we're limited by available 3D models, but using reskin is possible) may prevent U.K. to reach the end of the projects line before the end of the war.
If it's a question of more upgrade path using existing classes, that can be change by users by editing the g_UnitUpgrades table, but IMO the way it is limited now shows how the U.K. engineers have tested a lot of wrong paths before reaching the first great main battle tank design.
I.1/ Infantry Tank classes are added in next version. The way the units are initialized, we can keep the cruiser class as it is, but give different promotion to U.K. and soviet models. Now there is the problem of game play: how should we use those unit in R.E.D. ?
I.2/ I've already changed the Valentine position, see the spreadsheet, I think the position I've put it is what you're suggesting already, let me know if not.
I.3/ There is a demand to separate all light tank classes in 2 type based on gun caliber. I'll think about it again, but I don't want to have units that could be wipped out by a heavy unit in one turn... The bonus/penalty should be reflecting that. And again, the difference in caliber/armor can be set at the unit level now. Just need to find the right promotion.
I.4/ Same as above, with just one precision about the limitations based on available 3D models.
I.5/ Maybe we can make the latter light tank units be "regiment", not "division", need feedback on that one...
I.6/ Yes, the first Panzer IV must be changed. But same as for the infantry tanks, suggestions are welcome on how to reflect the changes for that unit in game play perspective.
I.7/ Difficult to balance dynamically. But there is a fixed ratio table used in the 1939 Europe map (g_Max_Armor_SubClass_Percent) that can be changed, and it can be combined with a modification to the initial OOB. Now there is still the game play problem, most players expect the German AI to crush France at the beginning of the war, something that would not happens if we use realistic OOB with the game mechanisms.
I.8/ Same as above, with g_Combat_Type_Ratio table, and the same reserve about gameplay.
II.1/ Promotions (free) unlocked by projects is IMO the way to go. Moves can be one of those.
II.2/ I'm still struggling on how to represent mechanized infantry on the map, the 3D models I mean. A mixed unit with trucks and infantry ? light tanks and infantry ? all together ?
II.3/ But paratroopers cost more hammers to produce (x1.87) and have a penalty against cities (-10%) and armored units (-25%), while infantry have a bonus against city (+20%).
IV.1/ I would encourage you (or anyone using modified files BTW) to post the files in the corresponding scenario thread so other users may test them. I do agree that the movement functions need more work, especially for troops (disembarking/reembarking when/where they should not...), but the core problem of the convoy bug on the Europe 1939 map is that it's not occurring on all computers and is related to DLL coding, not Lua. I wan't to know why before trying alternative fix in Lua, else it can occur again with another mechanism... that does not means that there are no bugs in the Lua code, but I want to fix the problem at the core (DLL/C++) first.
IV.2/ v.36 hasn't fixed the submarine bug on the 1942 map ?
IV.3/ W.I.P... Fleets need a lot of work.
V- ground
1/ tank Destroyer will get defensive bonus.
2/ I want to reduce the promotions effect on tanks. But the heavy cost in materiel is already something that reduce the effectiveness of tanks.
3/ Infantry can already get +75% when fortified, even heavy tanks are stopped by this on hills or wood, and "regiments" of combat engineers are planned, this support unit will give +100% with fortification.
4/ It's an AI problem, as I've said, the penalty was huge when the mod was first released, but a human player know how to use this, defensively and offensively, while the AI does not. At all.
V - ATG
1/ Yes. But it would require DLL modification, that I try to avoid as much as possible. Maybe in latter stage of development.
2/ Well, I use them. Especially when there are enemy fighters in interception, they would give hell to my attack aircraft if I don't own air superiority. What kind of buff do you think they need ? (and remember that I have a lot of users complaining that bombers are already too powerful)
V - ATS
1/ That may depend of the map size. I could add an option at scenario level to reduce air range of all units.
2/ Yep, should not be this way, do you have in game example ? IIRC, it may have already been reported, or was it sea to sea combat that had changed ?
I really need to add a "critical hit" or "torpedo" promotion to be used against capital ships...
VII/ W.I.P.
Fortification and Airfield planned, cities outside modifications (farm, factory) are not, except maybe industry relocation projects (for USSR)
the AI won't know how to use such units, but Mobile HQ are planned, could be seen as a sort of GG unit with a combat regiment wrapped around
Yep, could be done, added in the "to do" list.
We'll see if another layer is needed. Could be added at some point, was planned initially.
Not sure about the "easiest" part, but a free mode is certainly planned.
Ah nice, I saw the colours but didn't realize what they meant. Gun capabilities, armour and movement are really what's important tank-wise.
Is there any way to have some infantry and say one Stug or Matilda for the graphics a given unit? rather than 3 vehicles and a number of infantrymen?
Nice changes to come, on that particular piece, infantry on flat land, when not dug in, against veteran heavy tanks... Is it the same slaughter if the infantry has at least one promotion?
Well it's not unrealistic to consider that the unit sent some scout or a probe and decided to abort the attack! I must confess I've seldom seen the anti-suicide script actually triggering (against me, I've seen more in AI against AI fights for some reason). Maybe you can lower the threshold?
Nice to hear about the coming promotion/unit initialization changes, I'll gladly test them!
Moderator Action: one post moved (and answered) in the bug thread
thecivinator58
Warlord
Hey Gedemon, not to nag, but what's the status of Hungary ATM, because I didn't really get any feedback on the last diplo screen.
thecivinator58
Warlord
But given the time table is good, is all the material there?
Similar threads
