Fixing GD 1938

[ernieschwitz]

Hi Guys (and Gals if there are any)...

I was hoping that you could use this thread to come up with what you think is wrong with GD 1938, and what you think could be done to fix it. Now remember some things may simply be impossible to implement (real time diplomacy and combat for instance), so within the framework of the ATG engine, is the way solutions should be presented.

I know this is kind of asking for it, opening up and asking for critique, but some things I am sure need fixing, or tweaking, and I'd like for this thread to be a list of this.

I would like to ask you to be gentle, in the way you word things, since both Bombur and I hold this creation very dearly. So If you could keep it respectful, we would love that.

Yours
Ernieschwitz

[baloo7777]

I wouldn't mind if the Heavy Tank, in all its types, were a bit less the all powerful force it is at present. And would like to see infantry have a bit more "inherent" ability to fight with armor in general.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: baloo7777

I wouldn't mind if the Heavy Tank, in all its types, were a bit less the all powerful force it is at present. And would like to see infantry have a bit more "inherent" ability to fight with armor in general.

You mean make them ahistorical and fantasy?

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: baloo7777

I wouldn't mind if the Heavy Tank, in all its types, were a bit less the all powerful force it is at present. And would like to see infantry have a bit more "inherent" ability to fight with armor in general.

You are aware that GD1938 has AT guns, ATR's, Bazookas and such rather then embedding them in rifle units?

[LJBurstyn]

The best thing in my opinion would be to tweak the victory choices and circumstances. And to allow the choice to happen at a later turn.

[rhinobones]

Would like to see an optional game selection that allows AI opponents to randomly join into alliances. If some do form an alliance, they would all move during a single turn.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Bombur]

The excessive power of tanks vis a vis infantry is a matter of concern to us. In the last official version (221v) we decreased armour HP by 20%.

[ernieschwitz]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Would like to see an optional game selection that allows AI opponents to randomly join into alliances. If some do form an alliance, they would all move during a single turn.

Regards, RhinoBones

Sorry RhinoBones, that is outside of my ability. The game is not designed for AI opponents, first of all, and doing so was something that even Vic told me would be near impossible to do.

[Bombur]

I have a question to you, would you like to have a more open world GD1938, or an approximate simulation of WW2 with minimal room for variation?

[Tac2i]

I vote more open world. I'd rather make history than replay it.

ORIGINAL: Bombur

I have a question to you, would you like to have a more open world GD1938, or an approximate simulation of WW2 with minimal room for variation?

[Twotribes]

I want the ability to change what happened with good play but prefer it resemble history.

[cpdeyoung]

This can be handled with options, or house rules.

Open world victory conditions are tough.

Chuck

[gwgardner]

Taking over minor countries diplomatically should be much more difficult, especially if the desire is to make the game historical. Is it possible to have an option, allowing the current diplomatic system for achieving an ahistorical type of play, and another diplo system for historical?

Notwithstanding my failure to ever end isolationism in the one game I entered as the USA, I was however gradually accumulating all of South and Central America with very little opposition and had more than 50 cities if I recall correctly, only a little less than Germany.

I noted that very quickly the USSR took over Turkey, France took over Spain, etc.

[cpdeyoung]

Remember that there is a way (discord) to make a nations relations go backwards.

Diplomacy is not passive in GD1938. Tightly fought diplomatic battles are possible. France does not get Spain all that often. We have seen Axis Turkey too.

GD1938 has a system where the "Axis minors" can arrive as they did historically, although it is shifted about one or two years earlier.

That being said there are some issues that could be altered.

1. The Americans in Scandinavia are a backdoor to war that the isolationist people would never have allowed. America can be active in the north and can gain Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland potentially. Their start points and growth rates there are probably too high.

2. The penalty for America influencing in the Western Hemisphere is too harsh, and leads to problems with new players who do not understand the path out of isolationism.

3. Please display the results of diplomacy on the notification, so you do not have to click through another blue card cycle to see them. If this is doable it would be nice.

4 Perhaps some dynamic movement in diplomatic status as the fortunes of war shift. Germany had much success in her recruitment of allies after her early success. On the other hand there is no way Spain was ever going to join a losing cause.

5. If we are going to continue with a 1938 start I think we need to slow everything down, perhaps a lot. This involves production, research, and diplomacy.

I just throw these out as thinking points.

Chuck

[cpdeyoung]

On Production :

I think we might move to monthly research availability. This would allow for something like an investable tech tree. The variability would be small, perhaps a month or two earlier, or later than historical.

Many leaders on the political side took an active role in bringing new tech forward. Hitler, for example, killed projects he did not like and favored those that demonstrated well.

Chuck

[cpdeyoung]

On Experience :

This is the issue I think most important.

There is too wide a range of experience, and morale. At the division level there are always new men. This is because all armed conflict involves losses on both sides. This may not be true of elite squads against raw, barely trained squads, but at divisional levels bullets fly both ways. In ATG it is possible to have elite divisions that take no battle losses, and with each success this result becomes more likely. This makes counter-attacking counter-productive (I could not resist the phrase). Those who only play the attacking powers might not realize how tough this is on the Soviet player, for example.

Since this is an ATG issue I think we need something like "superior doctrines" to address the width of the experience-morale-losses gap. I think 2-1, 3-1 should be the widest it gets. Now it is more like 5-1, even 10-1. In real life defenders tend to learn more from defeats than the attackers learn from victories, but that is not currently reflected in the simulation. If we had a mechanism to address this issue it would help I think. Perhaps another "superior training" dose, one that came with combat rather than being bought. Men exiting basic training in 1942 had learned new techniques than those of 1938. I have no problem with the Germans having an edge on the Soviets, but not such a large edge. The wear and tear of attacking just is lost in this model.

Do not make the mistake of thinking it is a German-Soviet problem. Once any nation starts on the downhill slope the 10-1, 20-1 range makes the slope too steep. It can be hard to realize the problem unless you are on the wrong side of it.

Chuck

[ernieschwitz]

On experience:

There are basically four things that can be adjusted regarding experience.

1). the autogain function: It can be capped at a max pr. round.
2). the augogain function: can be changed... (not an easy function to change to something reasonable)
3). the max exp. levels of troops can be changed.
4). the max exp free autogain can be capped earlier, or later.

Unsure if any of these would help any at all.

[ernieschwitz]

On research:

I'd like to know a bit more on the details of this before commenting. What exactly do you mean by monthly research...

[ernieschwitz]

On diplomacy:

Diplomacy is unlikely to change much. Mostly because I like that there is an alternative to combat to make smart moves. Taking over a country and making it closer to happening, gives a player something to think about. Coups and discord are possible to prevent take-overs by other countries... and I think that the right dynamic has been reached to create something worth investing in rather than waging war for all the PPs available.

[Bombur]

Could some of you take notes of the number of VP controlled by each player in some games? Send me the game number, the year and months and number of VP owned by each country please? I´m working with ernie in a possible new (and simpler) system of victory that will reward both countries and coalitions.