Mass Air Groups

[Harun]

I wonder if they added operational movement to relieve the tedium of direct movements, or to help the US get forces to Europe?

There could be play balance issues.

Also, why not have a "forced march" option for air units where they suffer penalties, but you fly longer distances, and then use standard transports to ship over oceans? I'm pretty sure air units require gas trucks, repair units, etc. Not everything can be flown.

I'm sure the devs have their reasons.

[Hairog]

With the operational supply to three you have many choices on where to land.

[Hairog]

boost the supply needed to six and your choices are fewer.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Maybe just zones (green/yellow/red)

Green - all Major countries Europe & USSR - no limit

Yellow - Eastern Africa & Middle East Southern Scandinavia 3 bombers/3 fighters (including carriers) this could include other areas just throwing it out

Red - Western Africa & Northern Scandinavia 3 planes

This could work but would unfortunately require game engine changes and we might not be sure how long it would take to fine tune it to everyone's satisfaction and if everyone would like this kind of change. It's a bit of a significant departure from the current way things work, which we are typically loathe to do at this point in the development (changes like this are better for new games) and I could see potential issues, as an example, such as the Allies starting with 3 bombers in Eastern Africa, then another 3 in Western Africa and then when you meet in the middle or if you want to deal with an ebbing and flowing front line there it might feel to restrictive, or confusing, when suddenly you cannot move (maybe even attack?) your air unit across an imaginary restrictive border etc.

Again this goes back to my "whack a mole" comments of then potentially requiring more rules or adjustments or fixes for fixes, that it can get out of hand quite quickly unless it is really thought out carefully from start to finish on all the potential game play effects. Which is why we sometimes take a while to sit back and listen and really try and think things through before rushing to changes.

Typically this is why we have favoured the MPP costs for operational movement, the requirement to have HQ support, and the morale losses that units suffer from operational movement as there is more flexibility, less arbitrary rules to remember, and usually a pro and con to making those types of massive reorganizational movements. As mentioned it could be that the Axis player will have paid too high of a price to move all their units to Algeria and they will suffer on the Soviet front and then this is more of a one off and all is well as ultimately he will lose, or it could be that he benefit/ease of capturing Algiers and Casablanca is the problem, so that a script based solutions/adjustment is all that is needed there instead. The latter notion is something, that after discussing this thread internally, Bill has mentioned he will look into.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I can probably agree with some loss to Air Units when being Operated. They do take a hit to Readiness, but I often feel weird when Operating a unit from USA to France, or Middle East to Russia, and the unit arrives with no losses. Perhaps anything over twice the units' current range could result in a 75% chance to lose one strength point, anything over three times the units' current range could result in a 75% chance to lose two strength points, or some such.

I don't agree with limiting HQ's to two or three air units attached. It may sound good for Africa or the Middle East, but not in France or England where I commonly have seven air units attached to an HQ. This allows the air units to be back from the front lines and still within close range of an 'Oberkommando Luftwaffe' or '8th Air Force' HQ. I don't see anything wrong with that.

For us, and based on the comments we've read so far, it sounds like it boils down to whether the issue is:

1) massing of air units in far reaching places should be impossible

or

2) it could be possible if a player really wants to do so, but then the penalites should be higher.

* * *

If it is 1), then adding operational movement strength penalties, requiring more HQs etc., could still lead to a situation where a player will still decide to mass their air units in let's say North Africa. This is only because these suggestions, while increasing the penalties, still won't block a player from such a move as there is no hard rule in place limiting such a situation.

We've already essentially forced players to bring more HQs with them with the previous supply and HQ attachment rule change, which increases the cost of massing air units by the cost of at least an additional HQ, and as we have seen from PvtBenjamin's initial post, it hasn't stopped a player from concentrating their air.

A hard rule could be implemented such as the suggested zone rule that PvtBenjamin suggested in an earlier post, but as mentioned in my previous reply above, this can have unintended consequences or even odd game play situations that unless carefully thought out might lead to potentially worse game play situations for players. There are those that are ok with arbitrary rules, while there are those that prefer to leave as many decisions up to the players so long as we get a pretty fair pro versus con for each game play action/decision. This needs to be considered as well from our end.

If it is 2) then the above suggestions are more in line with this, but we have to be careful that we don't go too far, since as sPzAbt653 suggests, it could have effects on how players prepare for D-Day on either side, i.e. from England or from northern France. For example requiring 3-4 HQs for Germany in northern France to have enough HQs for 6-7 air units as well as other defensive land units might feel like a bit much.

That and we might still have those that will still be frustrated with a situation where a player has thrown enough support and capacity to mass their air units in North Africa no matter what sort of penalties and costs are in play from our end.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Hairhog,

At one time way back when, the minimum operational supply for air units was at 5, same as it was for other land units, but the feedback we had was that this was too restrictive for air units, and so this is why we went to 3 as our current setting.

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Harun

I wonder if they added operational movement to relieve the tedium of direct movements, or to help the US get forces to Europe?

There could be play balance issues.

Also, why not have a "forced march" option for air units where they suffer penalties, but you fly longer distances, and then use standard transports to ship over oceans? I'm pretty sure air units require gas trucks, repair units, etc. Not everything can be flown.

I'm sure the devs have their reasons.

Currently there is a 15-25% morale loss from operationally moving your units, which does directly affect readiness, and yes the current implementation does just improve overall game play as there could be a lot of tedium otherwise.

For anyone that has forced marched the Wehrmacht from Poland to the French border over several turns instead of operating in order to save costs, they will be able to attest to the fact that not having Operational Movement as an option throughout the game would utlimately be a painful experience. Most players seem to prefer less clicks and this is why having fleet movements for multiple naval units has been on our list for quite some time as well.

One thing we are considering for the future is to increase the costs based on distance, also suggested in this thread, and one reason we avoided it in the past was because it would add to the number of mouse clicks in order to get the exact cost as players would have to indicate their desired destination before the cost could be calculated, but we've come up with a way to do so with actually decreasing the number of mouse clicks from what we currently have.

[BillRunacre]

I think that Hubert has covered all my own thoughts on massed air units, this has been on our radar since it was first flagged up but deciding how to address an issue is crucial. Particularly as I would rather we avoid introducing extra micro-management to the game, so sometimes the solution may lie in a different approach, as I think it might do here.

It seems from following the feedback over recent months that the Axis getting their hands on Algiers is the ultimate problem, and therefore I have implemented some changes to increase the diplomatic penalties for an Axis declaration of war on Algeria, and to also have the USA included in this. Algiers will have a slightly stronger unit defending it from Axis attack too.

Diplomacy against Majors has also been raised as a concern, and while I have come up with a more significant idea that should work better in future games (with full testing, as it is a bigger change) it seems that raising the cost in this game should make the investment a higher penalty and therefore more of a decision, i.e. will it be worth investing in a chit? Maybe, but it won't be as easy a decision to make as it has been.

Concerns have also been raised about the power of Tactical Bombers, and a simple solution is to decrease their build limit by 1 for the USA, USSR, Germany and Italy, while compensating by increasing their Medium Bomber build limits by 1. This means that a higher proportion of air units will be concentrating on demoralization and less on unit damage.

There are also a few other changes, e.g. giving the USSR a chit in Anti-Tank Weapons from the start, and making Leningrad less vulnerable to attack from the south.

It is a delicate balancing act and getting things right is very important to us. This is why we don't always comment when issues are raised because often seeing how the conversation develops is the best approach, and players frequently offer solutions to problems that jump off the page at us and I'll find myself emailing the suggestion to Hubert, or he will to me. [:)]

Bill

[Taxman66]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I think that Hubert has covered all my own thoughts on massed air units, this has been on our radar since it was first flagged up but deciding how to address an issue is crucial. Particularly as I would rather we avoid introducing extra micro-management to the game, so sometimes the solution may lie in a different approach, as I think it might do here.

It seems from following the feedback over recent months that the Axis getting their hands on Algiers is the ultimate problem, and therefore I have implemented some changes to increase the diplomatic penalties for an Axis declaration of war on Algeria, and to also have the USA included in this. Algiers will have a slightly stronger unit defending it from Axis attack too.

Diplomacy against Majors has also been raised as a concern, and while I have come up with a more significant idea that should work better in future games (with full testing, as it is a bigger change) it seems that raising the cost in this game should make the investment a higher penalty and therefore more of a decision, i.e. will it be worth investing in a chit? Maybe, but it won't be as easy a decision to make as it has been.

Concerns have also been raised about the power of Tactical Bombers, and a simple solution is to decrease their build limit by 1 for the USA, USSR, Germany and Italy, while compensating by increasing their Medium Bomber build limits by 1. This means that a higher proportion of air units will be concentrating on demoralization and less on unit damage.

There are also a few other changes, e.g. giving the USSR a chit in Anti-Tank Weapons from the start, and making Leningrad less vulnerable to attack from the south.

It is a delicate balancing act and getting things right is very important to us. This is why we don't always comment when issues are raised because often seeing how the conversation develops is the best approach, and players frequently offer solutions to problems that jump off the page at us and I'll find myself emailing the suggestion to Hubert, or he will to me. [:)]

Bill

Bill,

Algeria
I'm not sure that increasing the diplomatic penalty is going to mean much. Algeria -> Spain (Diplo or DE603) -> Gibraltar is so valuable to the Axis that it won't matter what the cost is to get it.

Strengthening the Algerian unit doesn't mean much in the face of massed Luftwaffe, which is going to be needed in North Africa anyway to root out Casablanca to get to the DE trigger.
Additionally, wouldn't the stronger unit also be a bigger pain for the US to take out via Operation Torch (if they get the chance)?

I would prefer the following instead: Make Malta & Gibraltar harder to take out.
The Rock should be a Mountain with a Fortress and possibly allow full (6 or 8) supply to her ports. The GARR should be replaced with an elite Shore Battery.

I would also like to see/suggest adjusting Spain: 1. DE 603 is too cheap (and easy); 2. Perhaps the Allies could have an (expensive) DE to counter DE 603; 3. Spain should still be recovering from
her Civil War thus her economic benefit should be reduced and her armed forces should be smaller and weaker.


Massed Air
Another suggestion: TAC bombers shouldn't remove entrenchment until level 3 (or perhaps remove 1/2 of an entrenchment at level 2. i.e. need 2 TAC bomber attacks to remove 1 entrenchment).

As a side note: Why is shore bombardment vs. units (i.e. not resource hexes) so ineffective compared to bombers? I get it that the Allies have a lot of Battleships, but it would be nice if it could at least
remove entrenchment.


Diplomacy vs. Majors
Ugh... you are taking a high risk gamble situation and just... increasing the risk. If I want to play craps I'll go to a casino instead of playing a war game.
I would much rather see Diplomacy vs. Majors work in the opposite direction. Make the Chits 50 MPP (like everything else) but cut the results of a hit to 1/3 or 1/4.


Russian AT chit
The argument for giving AT level 1 outright is that they then can't sell it off. If your AT level is 2 lower than the enemy tanks, you're better off having invested in something else instead.
Not even sure what I'm arguing for here, just making observation.

[Taxman66]

Personally, my biggest issue with the game still regards the Victory Conditions, and how they distort PBEM as I outlined in another thread.

[PvtBenjamin]

Thank You Bill and Hubert your comments are much appreciated.

I think Hubert suggestions to fix mass bombings & other issues are excellent. Great improvements.

I agree with Taxman that more radical changes are needed to DE 603. Its an enormous shift in the balance of power of the game for a minimal cost. Increasing US mobilization is great but if the attack is in the fall of '41 its close to meaningless. I can't see how significantly changing (or eliminating) DE 603 radically effects the Axis ability to win.

Again many thanks.

[KorutZelva]

Diplomacy vs. Majors doesn't seem like an issue.

It's currently a gambit not a slam dunk victory. That's the sweet spot you want for that.

Algeria
I'm not sure that increasing the diplomatic penalty is going to mean much. Algeria -> Spain (Diplo or DE603) -> Gibraltar is so valuable to the Axis that it won't matter what the cost is to get it.

Strengthening the Algerian unit doesn't mean much in the face of massed Luftwaffe, which is going to be needed in North Africa anyway to root out Casablanca to get to the DE trigger.
Additionally, wouldn't the stronger unit also be a bigger pain for the US to take out via Operation Torch (if they get the chance)?

I'm ok with that. I think currently the US is more peeved if the allies goes for Vichy territory than when the Axis does it. One way to help Operation torch is to tweak the 'DE 308 – USA: Order O.S.S. to Intrigue?' that lower readiness of Algiers troop to also include some 'attrition' type loses on the defending nnit (or 2 units cause surrendering like in Irak). That way bumping the corps defense doesn't hinder the allies and also make the decision more relevant because before it really wasn't necessary due to the Vichy corps weakness.

[PJL1973]

Re DE 603, it's the fact that you get up to a 70% swing for Spain joining the Axis. That's equivalent to spending about 5 chits in diplomacy alone (worth 250 points), and it't instant. Not to mention that the allies can't really counter it.

Instead, the event should just let Spain move about 30%-40% to the Axis. Still a significant boost, but means that Axis still need to use diplomacy to get Spain into the Axis. Furthermore the Allies still have a chance to counter it.

[PvtBenjamin]

here is my post on DE 603 ( taking Algiers and getting Spain)

DE 603 a little light? Just a little.

All the Axis has to do is attack after fall '41 and the 8-15% for the US is close to or totally irrelevant.


1)Axis gets the geography (& mines & ports), additional slots and eventually Gibraltar(which has a large impact on Allies in NA).

2) 1300 value in Spanish troops and ships immediately

3) 250 MPP per turn

4) Taking Portugal a piece of cake after Spain.

All this for 800MPP (200x4) and taking out a 3 str non entrenched corp (with 30% Spain).


Also in my last game that the person tried DE 603 I had two troops within 5 hexes of Casablanca and it still fired.

[/quote]

[/quote]




Above is a post I have written several times on DE 603

[xwormwood]

I think Bill is on the right track.
Why do people attack Algiers in 1940.

Probably because of Spain.
Making either Spain less interesting or adding more punishments to conquer Spain or "receive" Spain by conquest could help.

Spain could muster only garrisson units once joining the Axis, followed by one or more DE asking for more money to repair the damaged (civil war) country and to rebuild the army.
Even a scenario where Spain joins while it denies access to its country ("stay away from Gibraltar") could be an idea, only to be overcome by investion more into Spain.
Franco demanded pretty much from the Germans for entering the war.
Maybe Italy could get crippled from a spanish war entry, and Russia could get some bonus knowing that the sh*t just hit the fan.

The entire package could become a great additional content for an add-on, combined with some what if campaigns, more DE, pictures, sounds or music.

[Hairog]

Excellent explanations, logical consequences, and information from Hubert and Bill.

Mass air attacks should be possible and very expensive in either MMPs or unit moral or both. Reading about carpet bombing by Tedder and later by others, it is apparent that it took a lot of resources to pull it off.

That being said they did pull it off and did devastate whole units in one attack. The tactic some players are using should be possible but, rare.

I suggest that you just have to make it more expensive than it is currently.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: PJL1973

Re DE 603, it's the fact that you get up to a 70% swing for Spain joining the Axis. That's equivalent to spending about 5 chits in diplomacy alone (worth 250 points), and it't instant. Not to mention that the allies can't really counter it.

Instead, the event should just let Spain move about 30%-40% to the Axis. Still a significant boost, but means that Axis still need to use diplomacy to get Spain into the Axis. Furthermore the Allies still have a chance to counter it.

This is rather uncanny as this is exactly what I'd been thinking of for future games! [:)]

However, I've had a thought today that the same result can be achieved with a lot less work our side, and that would be to simply raise the threshold at which DE 603 fires.

So at the moment, Spain just needs to be 30% Axis.

If Spain had to be 60% Axis, then an intense diplomatic campaign by both Axis powers will also be required to get Spain to join the Axis.

It's the same result just reached via a slightly different route.

Bill

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Algeria
Strengthening the Algerian unit doesn't mean much in the face of massed Luftwaffe, which is going to be needed in North Africa anyway to root out Casablanca to get to the DE trigger.
Additionally, wouldn't the stronger unit also be a bigger pain for the US to take out via Operation Torch (if they get the chance)?

The unit will just be slightly stronger when Algeria is Allied. Different scripts being triggered to deploy it.

It is a minimal difference but it seems reasonable to assume that they would have resisted the Axis stronger than they resisted the US.

As a side note: Why is shore bombardment vs. units (i.e. not resource hexes) so ineffective compared to bombers? I get it that the Allies have a lot of Battleships, but it would be nice if it could at least
remove entrenchment.

Otherwise players would endlessly bombard enemy units holding coastal hexes where they consider it safe to do so, whereas in reality these bombardments tended to be fairly short term in support of major ground operations.

Instead they provide a small demoralization which looking at what happened prior to D-Day and at various landings in the Pacific, seems reasonable.

I would much rather see Diplomacy vs. Majors work in the opposite direction. Make the Chits 50 MPP (like everything else) but cut the results of a hit to 1/3 or 1/4.

This is roughly what I'm thinking of for the future, but changing it here would be a lot of work and require significant testing.

Feedback has been that diplomacy successes against Majors can break some games, so by raising the cost slightly it means that when the gain is achieved, the penalty will have been adequate too.

This is particularly important as a chit invested in the USA by the UK that succeeds, will result in more income arriving via convoy from the US to the UK, so in the long run the UK gets some or all of its money back.

Russian AT chit
The argument for giving AT level 1 outright is that they then can't sell it off. If your AT level is 2 lower than the enemy tanks, you're better off having invested in something else instead.
Not even sure what I'm arguing for here, just making observation.

Agreed. I figure that by giving them an invested chit, it gives us the choice as a player on whether to let it develop level 1, or to cash it in and use the recouped MPPs to do something else.

I like choices like that, as it allows a bit more flexibility in planning for the USSR. [:)]

Bill

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

here is my post on DE 603 ( taking Algiers and getting Spain)


Above is a post I have written several times on DE 603

I agree with your thoughts on this and the new idea I've had for raising Spain's pro-Axis threshold for the Decision to fire would achieve the same result, and be much much easier to implement our side than what I'd previously been thinking of. [:)]

Bill

[KorutZelva]

I'm fine with raising the diplo-threshold for the event but I kinda like stronger diplomatic penalty. Slap a big USA mobilization on that bad boy. If the Axis is so intend to get Algeria in 40-41, make it so that 'all of France' is the preferred route.

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Feedback has been that diplomacy successes against Majors can break some games, so by raising the cost slightly it means that when the gain is achieved, the penalty will have been adequate too.

This is particularly important as a chit invested in the USA by the UK that succeeds, will result in more income arriving via convoy from the US to the UK, so in the long run the UK gets some or all of its money back.

yeah you get more money in the long run... but in the short term that's a whole bunch of non-existant units defending vs Sealion and Egypt. Making it pricier also hinders Germany if it wants to counter diplo... it cost them more at a point of the game when it's not swimming in money.