1.00.08U4: changing Advancement needs some checks

[ncc1701e]

The interface must prevent to select the same Advancement. For example, here, I am selecting Breakthrough 1940 on an unit that is already Breakthrough 1939.

[ncc1701e]

The outcome is that nothing has changed (normal) but the experience is now 66% instead of 74% for nothing.
A check would be good to avoid this or prevent the selection.

[ncc1701e]

Now, taking the same unit and going to Heavy Armor 1939:

[ncc1701e]

The experience is going to 59%.

[ncc1701e]

But reselecting Heavy Armor 1939, it goes down to 53% for nothing. Same, a check would be good or prevent the selection.

[AlvaroSousa]

Ok

[ncc1701e]

Solved with the U841. Thanks

[ericdauriac]

I'm embarrassed by the unit upgrade system. Changing a unit's equipment costs nothing but experience?
We can upgrade an armoured unit from Breakthrough 1939 to, for example, heavy armor 40 with no production or logistics costs? And even better to increase Breaktrough 39 to 40 with no cost other than loss of experience?

[AlvaroSousa]

I was considering changing it back to production since that is the least concern late in the war. Usually manpower is for the Axis.

[kennonlightfoot]

If I am remembering correctly, you can upgrade directly from a 39 level to a 40 level in another path. I believe it costs extra experience.

My opinion is, since the main reason for needing this option is to let you tailor your forces to your own advancement and production plans rather than having to live with the scenario's pre-arranged ones, this should be easier to do especially in the first turn of 1939 scenario.

Make any unit that starts at a 1939 level able to switch advancements at no or at least very minimal cost. Since the combat parameters for all 1939 Advancements are the same regardless of path that implies they haven't yet specialized so this shouldn't affect any game parameters.

The only other case for switching occurs much later, usually 42 or 43, when the Axis is changing from offensive to defensive and the Allies are making the change to offensive. Unit's at this stage will usually be at levels 41 or higher so the switch should cost them quite a bit both in experience (new equipment to learn tactics for), production (have to rearm), and logistics (new supply needs).

Easiest way (without knowing the program coding involved) would be to just let them switch to one step lower with a small experience penalty as well. An example being, if the Russians want to change from a defensive configuration to an offensive in 1943 they could switch their 1943 Anti Tank infantry to 1942 Assault Infantry.

Another example for early switch is if the UK player decides he needs air units that can stop SeaLion worse than supporting his troops they could switch their 1939 Bombers from Close Support to Naval at no cost. Later, once the SeaLion threat is gone, they could switch their 41 or 42 Naval bombers back to 40/41 Close Support.

[Uxbridge]

I think kennonlightfoot's suggestion is good, since this will also lead to a delay before the update system raises the tech year automatically. But I should add a small cost in PP and the loss of the entire turn for the unit concerned.

[AlvaroSousa]

I'll think about it. Late game it's fine but early game it can create problems. I have to think about all permutations for land and air.

[kennonlightfoot]

The main thing I see happening in 1939/40 is players switching their units to consistent advances for how they plan to fight. It takes on average 8 to 10 months for any Advances to increase a year so it will have little effect on the battle of France.

What I see players doing are things like:
Germans may want to change their Tactical Air to Naval in preparation to cover Europe so more troops are available for Russian front. Otherwise, their forces are rather consistent already. Maybe subs to Long Range.
UK has a mix that they might want to simplify. All infantry Anti-Tank. They may want to switch their Tactical Air to Naval to make SeaLion more difficult. Also, they may want their fighters changed to Escort.
US probably would want to change their lone fighter to Escort.

My idea being to give the players the option to tailor their initial forces to the plans they would like to use for Advancements rather than forcing them to follow or suffer consequences for not following the setting the scenario designer made.

Later in the war when Players want to convert from Defense/Offense to the opposite it would give them a simple path for doing it with some cost rather than having to break up their units and rebuild them. A lot of ways to balance this with costs in experience and levels.

[AlvaroSousa]

This is my solution because I saw the issue above.

Change Advancement— Allows a land unit or air group to change their advancement.
Land Unit – Must be in supply with a cost of 1 production per strength point.
Air Group – Must be in supply with a cost of 1 production per strength point and 2% experience.

The reason for the XP change on the air group is because you are literally changing aircraft types.
I think this is a reasonable solution. The 10% experience loss was a lot for players and nullified the effects.