Sugestions for Armageddon!

[unmerged(54763)]

Now there is anouncement for Armageddon booster pack..

It is obviously a major improvement product so it will be nice to send them some toughts about modest(realistic,not HOI III ideas) fixes that could be done.

My proposal.

1.Slightly increased air an sea defence of submarines.

2.Fixed Spain Civil war,becouse widely accepted conclusion is that Nat Sp/Rep.Sp. probability of winning wars is currently 20/80.It should be fixed to be at least 50/50,or even in favour of historical outcome.There is allso no consensus why is this so now?

3.Increased Old Guard retirement,espetialy for Germany that is allmost paralised in terms of automatic promotion of younger generals,becouse of more than dosen Old Guard-s.

4.Change of German Haevy tank brigade(HARM brigade) model 1 to be Pzkw IV(short 75mm gun) as this will be historical.In early war PzkW IV was used(and constructed actualy) for cracking "hot spots"and was classified early in war as"heavy tank".Only after failing of model III in fight with T 34,Model IV become main battle tank.So there is no"historic" logic in current german HARM 1 brigade model.

5.No need for extra(hipothetic) scenarios except historical ones.
-This game is enough interesting by itself becouse of replayability for many times.So some egzotic scenarios are not so important.What is more important are core improvements,and some promising are allredy mentionedin anaouncement of Armageddon.
So I would like to see some historical scenarios:Example-Kursk,Norway,Balcans,Krete,Torch

 

[Andri]

Make heavy tank a division not a bridge

 

[Pioniere]

(liebgot
5.No need for extra(hipothetic) scenarios except historical ones.
-This game is enough interesting by itself becouse of replayability for many times.So some egzotic scenarios are not so important.What is more important are core improvements,and some promising are allredy mentionedin anaouncement of Armageddon.
So I would like to see some historical scenarios:Example-Kursk,Norway,Balcans,Krete,Torch[/QUOTE]

HmmI hope you don’t want to remove Platineanwar from the game.
It looks so spicy. I would like to see a Sealion scenario and a 1942 November GP.

 

[Acheron]

I have tons of ideas, but the things in my signature I would really like to see taken care off.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Will CVL-s have a CAG group in Armageddon?

Anyone have information?

Please tell us(me).

If they will not,tell me gently please.

 

[ashbery76]

I want some cheesy scenarios included that nobody will play. :wacko:

 

[Myth]

I'd like the inclusion/extension of five rivers, and the removal of bits of two rivers.

river 1: the nieman
as well as the removal of the bit of river between Suwalki and Bialystok--as far as I can tell, that bit isn't grounded in any sort of reality at all.

river 2 & 3: the (southern) bug and the desna (that's the nieman in the top left corner there).

river 4 & 5: the oskol and a bit of the don
and the removal of the bit of river between Kharkov and Stalino--I can't figure out for the life of me what that's supposed to represent.

the fifth river--that bit of the don, isn't necessary but I feel that the other ones are. I'd also have added the Beresina but the provinces don't fit its shape at all

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

and the removal of the bit of river between Kharkov and Stalino--I can't figure out for the life of me what that's supposed to represent.

That is the Donets river, which runs all the way up to Belgorod


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Eastern_Front_1941-12_to_1942-05.png

Rising in the Central Russian Upland, it flows south past Belgorod, Russia; enters Ukraine and passes to the east of Kharkiv; swings southeastward and eventually reenters Russia; and then turns south to join the Don below Konstantinovsk.

Post 9999

 

[Myth]

I thought it may have been that, but (at least imho) it doesn't seem to jut out enough westward to warrant what it has in HoI2.

also, congrats on 9,999 posts

and, in the hope that its not too late to suggest this, I'd like to see four more naval traits: naval aviator (carrier bonus), battlewagon captain (BB, BC, CA bonus), destroyer commander (CL and DD bonus) and night fighter (reduction of night-time penalties).

 

[Pioniere]

Ideas!

Ideas!

I am not great player of hearts of iron 1 but I miss the geography art names on the rivers of the world. It really iterates me. I would like to see names over the rivers when you scroll the mouse button over it

Units
If you cud see a clear different between the Infantry units like in Hoi1 it would be fun.
Mec.Infantry, mountain troops and regular infantry. Even different graphic for German, British
, USA, Soviet, Japanese and Chinese units would be fun even so its strategy factor that is most important in the game.

 

[unmerged(72784)]

Yup

I agree with you 200%. Doomsday is a great game with a lot of potential. See what you think of my minor suggestions (I spent 30 years studying military and serving)

Now there is anouncement for Armageddon booster pack..

It is obviously a major improvement product so it will be nice to send them some toughts about modest(realistic,not HOI III ideas) fixes that could be done.

My proposal.

1.Slightly increased air an sea defence of submarines.

2.Fixed Spain Civil war,becouse widely accepted conclusion is that Nat Sp/Rep.Sp. probability of winning wars is currently 20/80.It should be fixed to be at least 50/50,or even in favour of historical outcome.There is allso no consensus why is this so now?

3.Increased Old Guard retirement,espetialy for Germany that is allmost paralised in terms of automatic promotion of younger generals,becouse of more than dosen Old Guard-s.

4.Change of German Haevy tank brigade(HARM brigade) model 1 to be Pzkw IV(short 75mm gun) as this will be historical.In early war PzkW IV was used(and constructed actualy) for cracking "hot spots"and was classified early in war as"heavy tank".Only after failing of model III in fight with T 34,Model IV become main battle tank.So there is no"historic" logic in current german HARM 1 brigade model.

5.No need for extra(hipothetic) scenarios except historical ones.
-This game is enough interesting by itself becouse of replayability for many times.So some egzotic scenarios are not so important.What is more important are core improvements,and some promising are allredy mentionedin anaouncement of Armageddon.
So I would like to see some historical scenarios:Example-Kursk,Norway,Balcans,Krete,Torch

 

[unmerged(72784)]

Minor Suggestions to Improve Latest Add on To Doomsday

I've played this game for months back and forth. Lot of variety. If Paradox wants to make an add-on, please let them include some of the following:

1. All units suffer losses from attrition and battle. If artillery is pounding you you lose people and readiness. That is how commanders prep the battlefield. You should be allowed to bombard adjacent units and inflict 10-30% losses. Aircraft should never have the ability to destroy a unit, only degrade it to 33%. Even well organized units suffer losses each day. In WWII, germany lost 5000-15000 men a day without being active. My thought, every time you attack or get attacked, you lose 1-5% if you're really good or 10-50% if you attack frontally. Then your divisions you committed to the big battle would need 2 weeks to a month to rebuild and retrain. Would certainly slow down the pace of operations where I attack with 10 divisions for 12 straight months no matter how many battles I fight. It seems to be my readiness versus his. And only when I overwhelm his readiness, do I start to lose people and equipment.
2. Allow building of Guards Divs (russia), Waffen SS (germany), triangular (3 regiment) US Divs, etc. Enhanced attack and defense, movement (all motorized), recover strength faster (priority of replacements), etc. Hard to build, expensive, good staying power. Germany built 28 such divs (SS units were different) while russia build something like 60 of them (out of 700 divs).
3. Restrict resupply to X provinces away from a stockpile. Allow creation of depot units that are static and take a long time to move (week). Restrict units in supply to six provinces (land/sea) from these depots to receive 100% supply. Defense of 1. Many battles rotated around capturing critical supply bases (Sicily, Stalingrad, Tunisia, etc) that left the units in the field helpless.
4. Artillery Divisions!!! Russia had 40 of these. Slow moving, large soft attack value, low defense value. Germany had one but could have raised 30.
5. Attachment of engineer brigades should allow units to cross rivers, climb mountains faster. Allow to dig in quicker.
6. Expand events some. Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 (?), electrified a large part of the southern US and trebled IC production within a month. Building of the highway system/autobahn could increase infrastructure greatly but would have to have money/ICs committed to it.
7. Hitler/Stalin assassinated. Himmler/Molotov in charge. Less aggressive, more motivation to armies, more/less ICs, etc.
8. Siege gun units! I cannot think of any major battle in attacking a "fortress" (Eban Enamel the exception) without special brigades/divisions of siege guns. Independent units, slow, little defense, only useful against fixed defenses. Reduces fortification value (% change each turn). Eats a lot of supply. Maybe a combo unit of Siege engineers (sappers) and siege guns to reduce and take fortresses. At least fortresses of size....5? No armored/mech/motorized units are allowed to take fortresses. Only infantry units supported by guns/engineers.
9. In USA, the B29 bomber was more expensive and took longer to deploy than the H bomb. Development should reflect this. But make planes stronger SB. In Germany, all bombers were required to have dive brake (be dive bombers) and all fighters were required to carry bombs. Alternate historical choice? Especially when we kill Hitler? Faster deployment of german aircraft.
10. Immediate use of captured equipment/ICs. If depots allowed, immediate use of X % (50??) of captured supplies. This would add a lot of variety to the scenarios both militarily and economically. With so much captured equipment/prisoners one free division (INF/MOT/MECH) awarded for every five captured/forced to surrender??? Germans/russians allowed to raise/granted SATELLITE DIVISIONS in captured territory whether they LIBERATE it or not.
11. American perspective. Each major combatant had a way of fighting. England was slow and methodical. US learned to work together and use accurate air/artillery. Germany was great on attack but so so on defense (they never trained on how to retreat!!). Russians/italians could defend but suffered large losses in attacking. Wish we could have the game reflect this by tweaking some of the attack/defense etc numbers of each country as they produce divisions. Japanese had great infantry and ludicrous artillery, tanks, machine guns, etc. Currently all countries produce the same type of infantry division ATT 10, DEF 15, etc. How about italy, roumania, hungary, satellite divisions have a ATT 6, DEF 12. Would make the dymanics more interesting.
Appreciate any feedback. Please someone forward my thoughts to Paradox.

:wacko:

 

[Myth]

1. All units suffer losses from attrition and battle. If artillery is pounding you you lose people and readiness. That is how commanders prep the battlefield. You should be allowed to bombard adjacent units and inflict 10-30% losses. Aircraft should never have the ability to destroy a unit, only degrade it to 33%. Even well organized units suffer losses each day. In WWII, germany lost 5000-15000 men a day without being active. My thought, every time you attack or get attacked, you lose 1-5% if you're really good or 10-50% if you attack frontally. Then your divisions you committed to the big battle would need 2 weeks to a month to rebuild and retrain. Would certainly slow down the pace of operations where I attack with 10 divisions for 12 straight months no matter how many battles I fight. It seems to be my readiness versus his. And only when I overwhelm his readiness, do I start to lose people and equipment.

I don't understand this at all. what are you actually proposing?

2. Allow building of Guards Divs (russia), Waffen SS (germany), triangular (3 regiment) US Divs, etc. Enhanced attack and defense, movement (all motorized), recover strength faster (priority of replacements), etc. Hard to build, expensive, good staying power. Germany built 28 such divs (SS units were different) while russia build something like 60 of them (out of 700 divs).

waffen ss divisions were exactly the same as other divisions, only they were prioritized for men and equipment. that's the key word: prioritized, which is already possible. as for the soviet guards divisions, a great many of them were given the guards title for excellence in combat--something you can't build. at the level of grand strategy, das reich was essentially the same as 1st panzer, except it was prioritized which, as I already mentioned, you can already do on your own.

3. Restrict resupply to X provinces away from a stockpile. Allow creation of depot units that are static and take a long time to move (week). Restrict units in supply to six provinces (land/sea) from these depots to receive 100% supply. Defense of 1. Many battles rotated around capturing critical supply bases (Sicily, Stalingrad, Tunisia, etc) that left the units in the field helpless.

I like this idea (in a general sense, I'm sure the details might need some tweaking)

4. Artillery Divisions!!! Russia had 40 of these. Slow moving, large soft attack value, low defense value. Germany had one but could have raised 30.

sure

5. Attachment of engineer brigades should allow units to cross rivers, climb mountains faster. Allow to dig in quicker.

well, they do already give reduction of the river-crossing/attacking penalty

6. Expand events some. Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 (?), electrified a large part of the southern US and trebled IC production within a month. Building of the highway system/autobahn could increase infrastructure greatly but would have to have money/ICs committed to it.

you have CORE for stuff like that. not everyone wants to play with a billion events.

7. Hitler/Stalin assassinated. Himmler/Molotov in charge. Less aggressive, more motivation to armies, more/less ICs, etc.

this is already possible with espionage, even if you can't hit the HoSs or HoGs themselves

8. Siege gun units! I cannot think of any major battle in attacking a "fortress" (Eban Enamel the exception) without special brigades/divisions of siege guns. Independent units, slow, little defense, only useful against fixed defenses. Reduces fortification value (% change each turn). Eats a lot of supply. Maybe a combo unit of Siege engineers (sappers) and siege guns to reduce and take fortresses. At least fortresses of size....5? No armored/mech/motorized units are allowed to take fortresses. Only infantry units supported by guns/engineers.

you're jumping around here from one thing to another. but anyway, sure anzio annie required as much manpower as a small brigade, but it was always held by many to be a waste of, well, everything that went into maintaining it. why would we want this in the game? as for the 5+ fortifications thing, I'm iffy on it. what's the justification for it?

9. In USA, the B29 bomber was more expensive and took longer to deploy than the H bomb. Development should reflect this.

in what sense do you mean this?

But make planes stronger SB. In Germany, all bombers were required to have dive brake (be dive bombers) and all fighters were required to carry bombs. Alternate historical choice? Especially when we kill Hitler? Faster deployment of german aircraft.

so you want gameplay additions based on an ahistorical event?

10. Immediate use of captured equipment/ICs. If depots allowed, immediate use of X % (50??) of captured supplies. This would add a lot of variety to the scenarios both militarily and economically. With so much captured equipment/prisoners one free division (INF/MOT/MECH) awarded for every five captured/forced to surrender??? Germans/russians allowed to raise/granted SATELLITE DIVISIONS in captured territory whether they LIBERATE it or not.

yes, as you said, they raised satellite divisions. ie, they provided for their equipment, their training, and assigned them a general. that belongs, quite rightly, in the production queue.

11. American perspective. Each major combatant had a way of fighting. England was slow and methodical. US learned to work together and use accurate air/artillery. Germany was great on attack but so so on defense (they never trained on how to retreat!!). Russians/italians could defend but suffered large losses in attacking. Wish we could have the game reflect this by tweaking some of the attack/defense etc numbers of each country as they produce divisions. Japanese had great infantry and ludicrous artillery, tanks, machine guns, etc. Currently all countries produce the same type of infantry division ATT 10, DEF 15, etc. How about italy, roumania, hungary, satellite divisions have a ATT 6, DEF 12. Would make the dymanics more interesting.

the differences between divisions of different countries are reflected in their doctrine. what I'd like, however, is more varied and more detailed doctrine options.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Where did you get this from ?

The PzKw IV was at first listed as a medium support tank, it was never designed or listed as a heavy tank. PzKw IV were an organic part of almost every German Panzer-division, it wasn't used by independent armoured units. It also wasn't used for cracking 'hot spots'. The PzkW IV was designed to use its gun against infantry and AT-guns, using its short 75mm gun to fire HE-shells. The PzkW IV was just a bit heavier (1 to 3 tons) then a Pzkw III, so this also doesn't qualify him as a heavy tank.


Heavy tanks were used as independent support units for breakthrough operations, the PzkW IV was never used that way.

The only heavy tank the Germans had early in the war was the Neubaufahrzeug, of which just a few prototypes were built

-----------------------------------------------------------

EDIT
What I really would like to see in Armageddon is the event command to change flags, so that when my country turns from say democratic to communist its flag will change to

We are talking abot 1939, and 1940 when talking about german HARM 1 brigade.
I disagree with you becouse PzkW IV was in infantry support role exactly like Matildas.Maybee he wasnt nearly as heavy as Matillda but was in simillar role,of course adapted to more mobile Blitz doctrine than in British case(much faster).
This tank was constructed parallel to Pzkw III as support"haevy tank".His designers foreseed importance of big guins in future so they easily lately mounted a long high velocity 75 mm gun on them(imposibble to do on PzkWIII small turret).Thus PZKW IV become main battle tank.But it was in 1941
But in Poland,and France his role was as haewy tank.(roughly).

My arguments sumarised:
1-The real truth will be that Germans didn have HARM 1 brigadde in early war.
2-The seccond truth will be that curent HARM 1 model wasnt produced in more than dosen(or similar)numbers.Practicaly thid whicle didnt existed on batlefield!It is placed in wrong context of place and time here in game.
3-Pzkw IV was anything that Germans had in early war that could be,et least administratively placed in cathegory of HARM.
4- "Spice argument"-Pzkw IV pic looks realistic et least it gives a player feeling he is commanding a German division with familiar historical machines atached to it.For purpose of game as another of many aproximations,logic is clear that it fits OK as HARM 1.

Whatever inacuracy will be,Pzkw IV fits far more realisticaly as haevy tank brigade 1(HARM 1) than current strange buldozer .

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

PzKw IV were not used as infantry support tanks, the germans didn't use their tanks to support infantry. They were medium support tanks, their purpose was to support the PzKw III and the PzKw 38t against infantry and AT-gun defences.

To support their infantry the Germans used Sturmgeschütze (assault guns), the first prototypes of these vehicles were built in 1937, while they first saw combat in may 1940.

You are correct that the Neubaufahrzeug was never used as a heavy tank either, but that doesn't mean that the PzKw IV should suddenly be the heavy tank. The Neabaufahrzeug is a 'what if' tank

 

[unmerged(54763)]

PzKw IV were not used as infantry support tanks, the germans didn't use their tanks to support infantry. They were medium support tanks, their purpose was to support the PzKw III and the PzKw 38t against infantry and AT-gun defences.

To support their infantry the Germans used Sturmgeschütze (assault guns), the first prototypes of these vehicles were built in 1937, while they first saw combat in may 1940.

You are correct that the Neubaufahrzeug was never used as a heavy tank either, but that doesn't mean that the PzKw IV should suddenly be the heavy tank. The Neabaufahrzeug is a 'what if' tank

Oh If I could know how(easily) to place a picture to post here original from 1940,an german infantery advancing trough the fileds towards Belgian bunkers acompanied by PzkW IV with short gun.

In game "Blitzkrieg",known for meticulous modelling of tanks,you have beutifuly classified unit PzkW IV as"haevy tank" in France campaigh,and this same unit in Russian campain(now with long gun)classified as"medium tank".

Newerthelss I would like Pzkw IV to be HARM 1.It is still far more realistic than Neabaufahrzeug.
Those tanks realy were not asigned only to panzer divisions in 1940.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I can also post pictures of PzKw I in a field with infantry, that doesn't make it a heavy tank.

Sure, German tanks and infantry worked together, that was part of the 'blitzkrieg' (not the game) tactics.