Two games and the things that spoiled them

[KiwiNoob]

Huh? Your the one who told me to the issue is with such large divisions to begin with!!!

The division in my screenshot has 17600 manpower and you go on about 20000 men getting the benefit of armor and piercing from a single battalion?

What divisions are you using that are 20-25 width and have 20000 men???

Slight disconnect here. If you want to get the on-paper armor above the on-paper piercing of an AT support company then you need a smaller division with H.TD.

However the AI never gets even close to on-paper piercing values due to insufficient and old equipment. In-game you can use a large division.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

2. The problem is that having the bonus attached to the BP is that it has to be on the front line. It doesn't allow for a counter attack to be prepared.
Unfortunately even attaching units to a BP is hazardous. The moment you do the AI will start mucking up your pristine troop arrangements.

16. Well for staters if you had enough ships you could split them up into smaller fleets and assign them individually but thats time consuming and then requires a lot more effort to keep the production balanced between multiple fleets. Secondly - it's fine if a single DD will not effectively cover a large area. The idea is to set it up then just pump ships into the fleet so it becomes incresingly effective.

19. Tell one of your Axis armies to garrison the ports in europe and then go grab a coffee. They'll all be in watery tomb off the coast when you come back. Though I agree I need to adjust the wording - Don't convoy troops through areas where the other side has naval superiority. It's a bad idea.

20. Good call. That is a bit weird now that you mention it

2. I agree that BP should be allowed to start anywhere, maybe with some malus on the planning bonus the further away the front line/border is...

16. I see your point, but I disagree. It's like putting all divisions under a single Field Marshal for every battle across the world. Of course the latter is possible in game, but that doesn't make it any better...

19. I am aware of the problem. Still I don't like forbidding the AI something to do that the player may do. I quite often move troops through contested waters - after I have collected some intel about the enemie's fleet movement - esp in SE Asia . Your suggestion, if it was implemented fair, would block me from doing that. And that's the thing I wouldn't like. The only real solution to the problem (as for many others) is to improve the decision making of the AI and not placing STOP signs everywhere. It's a hard task, I know that...

 

[KiwiNoob]

16. I see your point, but I disagree. It's like putting all divisions under a single Field Marshal for every battle across the world. Of course the latter is possible in game, but that doesn't make it any better...

19. I am aware of the problem. Still I don't like forbidding the AI something to do that the player may do. I quite often move troops through contested waters - after I have collected some intel about the enemie's fleet movement - esp in SE Asia . Your suggestion, if it was implemented fair, would block me from doing that. And that's the thing I wouldn't like. The only real solution to the problem (as for many others) is to improve the decision making of the AI and not placing STOP signs everywhere. It's a hard task, I know that...

16. Except in this case the 'fleets' mission usually spans more than 3 provinces. As a person who primarily plays smaller nations my meager fleet almost always has only one job - convoy escort for my imports. This usually involves more than 3 sea zones and becomes a real hassle to micro in the other fleet(s) when a battle is started.

In fact even when I'm playing a major I always find myself cursing the 3 sea zone limit and/or the inability to assign multiple missions just because 4 or 5 zones are needed or I just want my fleet to hunt & guard escorts in an area without me need to split it.

19. Perhaps the problem is in the wording. I dont want this to be an engine rule that forbids the player from doing it. I'd like it to be an AI rule because the AI loses more manpower through pointless convoy's than it does through fighting. Much like a rule forbidding the AI from attacking piecemeal over a large river and into mountains

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

16. Except in this case the 'fleets' mission usually spans more than 3 provinces. As a person who primarily plays smaller nations my meager fleet almost always has only one job - convoy escort for my imports. This usually involves more than 3 sea zones and becomes a real hassle to micro in the other fleet(s) when a battle is started.

In fact even when I'm playing a major I always find myself cursing the 3 sea zone limit and/or the inability to assign multiple missions just because 4 or 5 zones are needed or I just want my fleet to hunt & guard escorts in an area without me need to split it.

19. Perhaps the problem is in the wording. I dont want this to be an engine rule that forbids the player from doing it. I'd like it to be an AI rule because the AI loses more manpower through pointless convoy's than it does through fighting. Much like a rule forbidding the AI from attacking piecemeal over a large river and into mountains

16. I agree, the 3 zones limit is somewhat arbitrary. For convoy escorts it could be solved by some kind of assignment to trade routes or naval invasion plans. In that case the fleet had to cover a relative narrow corridor and not the complete zones. This could be sufficient for giving it the reach needed to cover the complete route.
Maybe we simply have a different understanding of what those zones represent. From what I understand a fleet can cover the 3 sea zones before needing to return to port for resupply. I know that naval resupply is not modeled in the game, but that's the way I interpret it.

19. It's not the wording, it's the different rules for AI and human players that I see in your suggestion that bothers me. The introduction of impassable terrain is a (bad) solution for the AI's problem of dealing with low supply areas. Nevertheless the human is now restrained from entering those areas, too. If this is applied to your suggestion, as a consequence it would result in no one being able to move troop transports into contested waters. As I said, I am aware of the problem the AI has with moving troops by boat, and I would love to see a good solution for that problem. Your proposal is imho simply not a good solution. No offense. And I can't say that I have a good solution that is easy to implement, either.

 

[NightKev]

19. It's not the wording, it's the different rules for AI and human players that I see in your suggestion that bothers me. The introduction of impassable terrain is a (bad) solution for the AI's problem of dealing with low supply areas. Nevertheless the human is now restrained from entering those areas, too. If this is applied to your suggestion, as a consequence it would result in no one being able to move troop transports into contested waters. As I said, I am aware of the problem the AI has with moving troops by boat, and I would love to see a good solution for that problem. Your proposal is imho simply not a good solution. No offense. And I can't say that I have a good solution that is easy to implement, either.

I'm 99% sure he means "the AI needs to stop suiciding men into the opponent's navy like an idiot" and not "prevent units from moving into the sea without naval superiority".

 

[Celdur]

Only support AT which isn't enough to pierce a 25 width division with TD

That falls under the umbrella that -anything- works against the AI.

Because 25 width divisions? what the hell is that?

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

I'm 99% sure he means "the AI needs to stop suiciding men into the opponent's navy like an idiot" and not "prevent units from moving into the sea without naval superiority".

After re-reading it again and again, I guess you're right. As I said earlier: "The only real solution to the problem (as for many others) is to improve the decision making of the AI and not placing STOP signs everywhere."
Sorry for being somewhat pedantic.

 

[KiwiNoob]

I'm 99% sure he means "the AI needs to stop suiciding men into the opponent's navy like an idiot" and not "prevent units from moving into the sea without naval superiority".

Yes. This is what I mean

 

[safe-keeper]

1. yes, armour/piercing systems are a bit weird at the moment. I suppose it simulates that tanks fight tanks while infantry fights infantry, like in Europe Engulfed (board game), but even then, yes, it's a bit strange.

2. I actually like that the planning bonus is tied to battle plans. Once the BP is fixed, I actually want to see it taken one step further and make it so that the planning bonus only applies if the troops follow the battle plan. For example, if I'm at the border of Belgium and order them to plan for an invasion of Belgium, the bonus goes away if I move them into the Netherlands instead.

To circumvent the broken BP AI, just make the BP, and then delete the plan when the bonus has "charged up" and the fighting starts. Should not remove the bonus.

3. I can't believe I haven't thought of this. Will require a good deal of rebalancing, of course, but I really like this idea. Will give more incentive to only training troops partially, and thus lead to more variation of troop quality from nation to nation, or even within nations as they produce more or less equipment.

4. Not a bad idea to just have them get priority levels. Would greatly reduce micro.

7. Especially annoying when you play a mod like BlackICE that has lots and lots of custom equipment. Trying to figure out which of the artillery pieces you can build is the "Medium Artillery" the game asks for, or which of the trucks and cars you can build is the specific one that some TOE needs, is needlessly frustrating.

Officer: "I need a car!"
Safe-Keeper: assigns a factory to only crank out cars
Officer: "Not THAT car! Can't you tell I specifically need the yellow one!"
Safe-Keeper: dons regulation Frustration Venting Hard Hat and bangs head against wall

Marking items that need producing, the same way eligible upgrades are currently highlighted in green, would greatly help matters, too. Or just have a "Assign one factory to each thing we currently need to produce" button.

12. Some emergency measures would be cool, yes. I imagine not only the ability to change laws but also some events and quite possibly some new diplomatic options.

15. Agree 100%.

18. Yes, players should be allowed to micro trade routes. Definitely.

21. Don't agree entirely. It should be unpredictable whether a nation will join a faction. Remember, the Germans didn't expect the British and French to declare war on them when they invaded Poland.

23. How do you propose democracies should be made more fun?

24. Good point.

 

[KiwiNoob]

1. yes, armour/piercing systems are a bit weird at the moment. I suppose it simulates that tanks fight tanks while infantry fights infantry, like in Europe Engulfed (board game), but even then, yes, it's a bit strange.

2. I actually like that the planning bonus is tied to battle plans. Once the BP is fixed, I actually want to see it taken one step further and make it so that the planning bonus only applies if the troops follow the battle plan. For example, if I'm at the border of Belgium and order them to plan for an invasion of Belgium, the bonus goes away if I move them into the Netherlands instead.

To circumvent the broken BP AI, just make the BP, and then delete the plan when the bonus has "charged up" and the fighting starts. Should not remove the bonus.

23. How do you propose democracies should be made more fun?

2. BP ruins your troop placements. Plus drawing the BP just to get bonus then deleting it is just busy work I'd rather not do.

Plus, plus - this way you can build up the bonus when not on the front line (get counter attack ready) and it required equipment to build up the bonus which I think is realistic and more fun.

23. I'm not really sure on this one. Maybe have a sandbox mode which removes the limitations - this way if your playing historical it's business as usual but if your not it saves you having to change to fascism at the start of each game.