What's Most Important to YOU?

[Veers]

I may or may not have some free time coming up that I may or may not put towards EA development, or putting out turns to my opponents.

So, in that spirit :clown: I'd like to know what YOU feel would be the best use of time put into the development of EA. Lots of things have been suggested on this forum, so pick something from the anals of the forum, or come up with something new. I'd just like to get a feel for what the community wants to see in EA 4.0.
Obviously, I know what I want to see, and have an idea of what some members of the community want, but now is your chance to make your voice heard and opinion on specifics known.

 

[Raver]

Well I would really like to see a replacement system modelled along the DNO/ FitE lines - ie when major cities or production centres are taken, there is a reduction in replacements. This is modelled as well as 500 events allows at the moment, but hopefully more should be possible with more events??

 

[Veers]

Well I would really like to see a replacement system modelled along the DNO/ FitE lines - ie when major cities or production centres are taken, there is a reduction in replacements. This is modelled as well as 500 events allows at the moment, but hopefully more should be possible with more events??

The problem is that if...I dunno, say Kiev (if memory serves a reasonably vital Soviet industrial city), falls, and the replacements go down, the replacements across the board have to go down, so, not only will you see less Soviets and Soviet Rifle Squads, you'll also see less Western Allied Rifle Squads and tanks.

The only way to properly do this would be to have disband units in every Soviet city. So, every two weeks, Kiev gets a disband unit that includes its % of Soviet stuff for that two-week period. As long as Kiev remains undefeated, the Soviet (Allied) player would get these replacements and when they lost Kiev, they'd loose these replacements. So, this would create a situation in which the Soviet (Allied) player would be disbanding units every couple weeks, one for every city we deem to be industrially significant to the Soviets.

This has the advantage of seperating Western Allied and Soviet replacements, though, and could be put off until a German attack so that the Soviets are getting a minimum of replacements before the war and then getting much more after they are attacked, as was historically the case.

It would be a lot of work, but so are some of the other things I am working on, so I'm certainly willing to do it if a way can be figured out and agreed upon.

Besides a lot of work, I cant think of any disadvantages, at the moment, but that may also be because I'm still half-asleep...

 

[Raver]

Just a starter anyway - I'm sure other people will have better ideas

 

[macgregr]

Here's the thread. I didn't see it at first.
...Continuing the subject of naval warfare for t3. Let's start with surface warfare.First off, every ship class should be represented as a sub-unit. Much of the genius of TOAW is how it handles reaction in the IGOUGO world. There are 3 levels of loss tolerance. So as I see it so there should be 3 levels of naval combat; long range, medium, and short(torpedo) range. Naval units should have a value for each range and these should be cumulative as the rounds (3) progress. The loss setting should determine at which point the units break from combat.(or try to if they have movement) Speed of a vessel should be factored into it's defense value perhaps more so than with land units. Each sub-unit should be recommended a certain number of 'hits' to accurately represent it's ability to withstand damage. Movement allowance should not be 'one size fits all' for naval units and should be based on the speed of the class. Modern SSMs should probably be best represented like air units. TOAW already has reaction movement on land.(L and T) At sea, it would be nice if units could react more like the move option in Pacwar. Based on the scale of the scenario, a number is logged as a reaction range, abstractly simulating a patrol.

As far as aircraft, it's been discussed, a naval interdiction mission. This should not only represent harassment by aircraft but more the value of having the moving unit 'spotted' and thus vulnerable to an intercept. So if the moving unit is stopped by interdiction, it's because they've been seen more so than attacked.

Submarines moving at sea should be vulnerable to naval interdiction, but their profile( a % value like say engineering or recon on land) should make them hard to stop. I've suggested adding an ASW(anti-submarine warfare) rating to units capable of attacking submerged units. I've noticed(painfully) that with the new patch, certain units remain invisible even while on the front. This should be afforded to subs. Equipping modern subs with SSMs could be difficult. Perhaps these SSM units could be invisible as well.

 

[Veers]

Here's the thread. I didn't see it at first.
...Continuing the subject of naval warfare for t3. Let's start with surface warfare.First off, every ship class should be represented as a sub-unit. Much of the genius of TOAW is how it handles reaction in the IGOUGO world. There are 3 levels of loss tolerance. So as I see it so there should be 3 levels of naval combat; long range, medium, and short(torpedo) range. Naval units should have a value for each range and these should be cumulative as the rounds (3) progress. The loss setting should determine at which point the units break from combat.(or try to if they have movement) Speed of a vessel should be factored into it's defense value perhaps more so than with land units. Each sub-unit should be recommended a certain number of 'hits' to accurately represent it's ability to withstand damage. Movement allowance should not be 'one size fits all' for naval units and should be based on the speed of the class. Modern SSMs should probably be best represented like air units. TOAW already has reaction movement on land.(L and T) At sea, it would be nice if units could react more like the move option in Pacwar. Based on the scale of the scenario, a number is logged as a reaction range, abstractly simulating a patrol.

As far as aircraft, it's been discussed, a naval interdiction mission. This should not only represent harassment by aircraft but more the value of having the moving unit 'spotted' and thus vulnerable to an intercept. So if the moving unit is stopped by interdiction, it's because they've been seen more so than attacked.

Submarines moving at sea should be vulnerable to naval interdiction, but their profile( a % value like say engineering or recon on land) should make them hard to stop. I've suggested adding an ASW(anti-submarine warfare) rating to units capable of attacking submerged units. I've noticed(painfully) that with the new patch, certain units remain invisible even while on the front. This should be afforded to subs. Equipping modern subs with SSMs could be difficult. Perhaps these SSM units could be invisible as well.

Macgregor, this is just for improvements to EA within the T3 framework. Most of these suggestions seem to require changes to the game engine, itself. Possibly good ideas, but just nothing I can do about it. Better to make these kinds of posts over at Matrix (However, if I have missread and these are actually able to be done without changes to the engine, itself, let me know, and I'll re-read it.) Appoligies all around as I've really been sleep-walking this whole week...I need to work less.

 

[macgregr]

Ah! I misunderstood. Never mind.

 

[Veers]

Ah! I misunderstood. Never mind.

00000000

 

[B-snafu]

Not most important to me but (too new to Ea to really commemt) But I would agree with you in this quote of yours from another thread----

----"You know, I was somewhat evasive over on Matrix, cause I really am not sure about this particular offensive being used for other than France. I'm actually thinking about having it cancelled with the fall of France (still up in the air about that). I, personally, think that the uniqueness of this TO means it should only be used against France."-------

 

[Veers]

Not most important to me but (too new to Ea to really commemt) But I would agree with you in this quote of yours from another thread----

----"You know, I was somewhat evasive over on Matrix, cause I really am not sure about this particular offensive being used for other than France. I'm actually thinking about having it cancelled with the fall of France (still up in the air about that). I, personally, think that the uniqueness of this TO means it should only be used against France."-------

I appreciate you commenting on it. If I get a good feeling from the community agreeing with that statement I will change it.

 

[Raver]

I quitely and humbly also agree with that sentiment.

 

[Merf]

You might consider using the event engine to model the ebb and flow of Soviet replacements and use disband units for the Western Allies. With US production being "off map" it wouldn't be affected by territory changing hands, and special replacement units could be tied to events fairly easily. British and French replacement units could be withdrawn if their countries are defeated and minors might have a low enough replacement rate that changes through the event engine wouldn't affect them so much. And, it would save you from having to change values on the equipment in hundreds of Soviet disband units when you want to tweak replacement rate...

 

[Veers]

You might consider using the event engine to model the ebb and flow of Soviet replacements and use disband units for the Western Allies. With US production being "off map" it wouldn't be affected by territory changing hands, and special replacement units could be tied to events fairly easily. British and French replacement units could be withdrawn if their countries are defeated and minors might have a low enough replacement rate that changes through the event engine wouldn't affect them so much. And, it would save you from having to change values on the equipment in hundreds of Soviet disband units when you want to tweak replacement rate...

A good point, especially the last sentence, and oen that I will be looking into, along witht he original thought. As well, French and British (and Polish, Greek, Yugoslavian, Norwegian, Belgian, Dutch, did I forget any other Western Allies? :laugh replacement units could be the same colour as the regular troops, which would mean they would withdraw with their regular armies. This would be coupled with the fact that I am sorting out giving each nation its own Rifle Squad, meaning that I could have replacements for every nation other than the Sovs at 0, so replacement events would do nothing for the Western Allies.

The decision maker would be to sit down and figure out which side would be more complicated/beneficial to have as replacement units (or maybe I should have everythign based on replacement units...). A question: I wonder if it would be easier to disband 5-10 Soviet replacement units in 5-10 Soviet cities each 2-4 turns or about 9 'Other' replacment units in all of the other countries (2 for Brits, 1 for French, Pole, Greek, Yugo, Norwegian, Belgian, Dutch, + if I forgot any countries).

 

[Veers]

Related to last post, but put in different one for ease of reference.

With the fact that I am giving each nation its own Rifle Squad I have one of two problems, maybe.

I am only able to use the Rifle/Support squads at the top, as I can't add any, as it would screw up everything.

So, my options are

A) to add these further rifle squads (maybe 1-4 countries) at the end of the list of equipment (so they would show all the way down at the bottom, below the planes in the replacements window) or

B) to have a few Rifle Squads named as such: Swedish/Norwegian Rifle Squad, Portugese/Spanish Rifle Squad, Iranian/Jewish Rifle Squad, Free Polish/Hewis Rifle Squad.

C) Just do my damndest to fit them all in at the top and maybe end up having very minor country's units grouped together, with the squad being named something like Allied Minor Rifle Squad.

One would have to understand the way the editor and BioEditor work to know why I have these options, but, suffice it to say, these are the options, which would you pick? Unless you do know the way BioEditor and the Editor work, and could give me a further option.

 

[Merf]

You also have to consider the unit limit of --what is it -- 2,000 per side. One disband unit for one country (or Soviet replacement city) every week over a five year period requires 260 disband units per country (or Soviet replacement city). That adds up fast. I would consider using events to model the Soviets, since it gives more flexibility, and since their replacement/reinforcement system is most at risk.

You might also consider the life span of minor nations' units. How long are they typically on the map before the Axis force their removal? Perhaps you could "front load" a static number of assorted minor rifle squads in the replacement editor, set their rate to zero, and give their units a very low replacement priority so they don't rebuild too quickly. It would also reduce the minor's staying power once their manpower pool was used up. How many times could the Norwegians or Greeks realistically rebuild their units? I haven't done any math or sims on something like this, but it SEEMS like a good idea to me.

 

[Veers]

You also have to consider the unit limit of --what is it -- 2,000 per side. One disband unit for one country (or Soviet replacement city) every week over a five year period requires 260 disband units per country (or Soviet replacement city). That adds up fast. I would consider using events to model the Soviets, since it gives more flexibility, and since their replacement/reinforcement system is most at risk.

You might also consider the life span of minor nations' units. How long are they typically on the map before the Axis force their removal? Perhaps you could "front load" a static number of assorted minor rifle squads in the replacement editor, set their rate to zero, and give their units a very low replacement priority so they don't rebuild too quickly. It would also reduce the minor's staying power once their manpower pool was used up. How many times could the Norwegians or Greeks realistically rebuild their units? I haven't done any math or sims on something like this, but it SEEMS like a good idea to me.

Certainly things I will eb looking into.

 

[LOK]

First let me say that EA is an absolutely superb scenario. Mark and Ulver have done an exceptional job. I am no expert on EA (I have played it only twice and have one game going on now) but my own personal preference would be a new map. There are better maps of Europe out there that can be used. I am not sure we need Brazil, Madagascar etc. either. Just my 0.02.

 

[Foggy]

First let me say that EA is an absolutely superb scenario. Mark and Ulver have done an exceptional job. I am no expert on EA (I have played it only twice and have one game going on now) but my own personal preference would be a new map. There are better maps of Europe out there that can be used. I am not sure we need Brazil, Madagascar etc. either. Just my 0.02.

Seconded - but I'll always prefer Fall Grau - but I'm an a Ami:bite:
PS the kids are watching" Sound of Music" - this hurts long term (

 

[Menschenfresser]

There is a counter intuitive way of reducing replacements for specific types of equipment. Create an off map area. Whenever the Axis takes, say, Kursk, one or more empty Soviet units appear in the off map area. Over time they will suck up replacements out of the pool.

Take the T34/76 (late). It's produced for 112 turns at the rate of 232 per turn. If Kursk dropped the rate by 5%, then over 112 turns you'd lose production of 1299 tanks. That can be accomplished by adding several empty replacement holders to the off map area. Preferably, several over an extended period of time so that all 1299 aren't sucked out of the pool in the first 10 turns after Kursk falls. The rate at which they acquire replacements can be modified by the unit replacement priority and would have to be tested quite a bit to "get right".

Honestly, I don't think you really need to confine yourself to drawing off exactly 5% or 10% per city. Rather than percents deal with it like EA deals with the Winter War. In large allotments of equipment. Instead, losing Kursk takes 1000 tanks from the Soviet pool over time. Or whatever.

But this alternative would allow you to model exactly which types of factories the Soviets, Germans, French, etc were losing when they lost a specific city. If that's necessary. Seems a lot easier than adding in dozens of disband cadres.

And I don't know how having these large units out of play but on map will effect scores and loss penalties. Does the equipment from withdrawn units effect loss penalty? If not, you could estimate the length of time it takes for these units to fill up and then have them withdraw.

 

[Raver]

Hey that sounds like absolute genius Mensch. And to be realistic, the loss penalties are not that important in this game anyway - its really a game of total victory or nothing. I've never had anything less than on OV or OL.