Re: More Feedback on AWLS: Korea 2006

[Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks@yahoo.com>]

> > The problem that I see with this is in the
> > creation of new naval units, which need to be
> placed
> > in the city since, obviously, they can't go on the
> > ground.
> 
> Right. And that was one of the worst cases. N. Korea
> only has one port 
> city, and the moment a Chinese unit enters it that
> port is lost for 
> naval (read, coastal submarine :-) production. And
> that somewhat 
> diminishes N. Korea's ability to put S. Korean,
> Japanese, and American 
> tonnage at the bottom of the Sea of Japan and E.
> China Sea.

The build code has been changed the most throughout
the game, because there are certain combinations that
the AI likes and, because I use wreck-typing, there
were unforeseen consequences of build times over 1
turn in length.  As it stands, the AI doesn't build
military or civilian transports or carriers, but it
seems pretty good at building a good mix of everything
else.  Looking back on it, though, I should have made
sure to give cities a build-range of 1 (Or 2, I can't
remember if 1 is same hex or 1 hex adjacent) for naval
units.  I think I ran into a problem with this, but
I'll put it in and see.
 
 
> Is there some implicit ASW capabilities in the
> group, like a screen of 
> picket ships or maybe some ASW choppers on the
> carrier's deck?

The surface groups and carrier groups are considered
to have abstracted integral destroyer and cruiser
support.  At this scale, considering a coastal sub can
cover so much distance and make an attack in one turn,
it seemed good to give them such a high counterattack.
 On reflection, though, I think you've shown that
coastal subs deserve increased effectiveness, and I'm
going to tweak the rules a bit to give them a better
chance in the current ruleset.

> 
> Even then, I think that might give an added
> detection boost against subs 
> (choppers trawling sonar cans in the water, etc...),
> but if the sub does 
> manage to get in and strike first, then what?

snip

> Sure. I understand that. The nuclear sub should be
> tougher and meaner. 
> I'm not saying that the little diesel boat should be
> able to run up and 
> blow it away in one or two pops, but the little sub
> shouldn't 
> necessarily be guaranteed to die if it gets first
> strike, either.

I think with adding more nuance to the manner in which
units are detected, and tweaking attack values, that
there shouldn't be any counterattack for units
attacked by a sub of either type.  If you know where a
sub is, it's a pretty fragile piece of machinery, but
if you don't, it's not like it has to surface to fire.

Now, if the counterattack code took into account
see-chance, then I could give units a counterattack
chance that would be defeated by the fact that it
couldn't see the unit.  Right now, if I guage the
results properly, it doesn't, so removing
counterattack altogether against subs seems the best
course of action.

> I think the Carrier Air Wing is a good idea. It
> would decouple two 
> different aspects of the present Carrier Group
> units, and save you from 
> having to make a bunch more special wrecked types
> based on who does the 
> killing.

Oh happy day, the chance to make another 30 units!  As
the onetime advocate of 800 unit games, I have to say
it is a damn tedious process, but I think it's
justified in this case, Carrier Groups are simply too
abstracted right now.

> It would be cool if the Russians were in the game.
> Then I could defend 
> that one chunk of land on the Amur river (IIRC) that
> they and the 
> Chinese skirmished over a few decades ago.

I've been harassing Hans to give me a map of Eastern
Russia and China (He has a Mac, which apparently has
better design tools with the maps, which allows you to
crop pieces of, in this case, the earth-50km.g map),
with which the next scenario in the series will be a
major land war between Mother Russia and the Chinese
juggernaught (With the help of Kim Jong Il, leader of
a newly united Korea).

> One more thing that I forgot to mention earlier. It
> seems that the N. 
> Korean cities can produce Carrier Groups but not Air
> Wings. That strikes 
> me as a bit odd.

The North Koreans shouldn't be able to produce Carrier
Groups.  I thought I turned that advance off for their
side, I'll have to go back and check.  There's some
advance (I think 'Modern Surface Vessels') that needs
to be turned on or the AI won't build anything (I
don't know why), maybe that's it...

But Air Wings can only be produced in Aerospace
Facilities, which represent the infrastructure
necessary to produce modern jets.  Originally, Armor
Groups, Advanced Armor Brigades and Air Defense
Networks could only be built in Industrial Centers,
but the AI didn't like that, so they're all built in
cities, now.

What's noticeably missing is a tech tree for armor and
air.  It's not so big a deal with infantry, but the
North Koreans are fielding 30-50 year-old tanks and
any fighters that China produces can't really match up
with American and Japanese counterparts.  Right now I
abstract it by giving the North Koreans 'wrecked' and
'damaged' armor groups and their one Wrecked Air Wing
(Mostly, from what I've read, composed of Mig-17
Fresco, Mig-19 Farmer and Mig-21 Fishbed fighters),
but there should be at least three levels of Fighter
Wing and Armor Group, like the Carriers are now. 
Only, when you account for experience, that's another
120 units.  Did I say something about tedium...




		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail