Jump to content

Logan Hartke

Members
  • Content Count

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Logan Hartke

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 03/01/1986

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    comradeloganov
  • MSN
    comradeloganov@aol.com

Converted

  • Location
    Jacksonville, FL
  • Interests
    Military History/WWII
  • Occupation
    Tech Support Manager
  1. I follow now. I misunderstood at first and was thinking that you were talking about research chits in general and not just intelligence ones. It would seem then that you would essentially need two separate systems, then, since intelligence just adds to your chances of regular research paying off. Technological advances by espionage and technological advances by research. While I can absolutely see your point, I think that it wouldn't be worth the game changes required to the system to implement it. Take, for example, the Tupolev Tu-4 saga. While that was a stroke of luck leading to B-29s landing on Soviet soil as opposed to a defection or espionage, the lesson remains the same. When they were acquired, Stalin ordered Andrei Tupolev to copy and produce the B-29. Tupolev protested since they were at that stage of development already and to build the B-29 instead would essentially make all their work be for naught. Stalin wanted to go with something he knew worked, however (lower risk) than let Tupolev use his own design. That they did, and while it advanced them technologically to use the B-29/Tu-4, it was the equivalent of flushing much of Tupolev's research and development down the toilet, so in that sense, I can see how it would make sense to lose the chit. I do think, however, that intelligence should allow for a small chance of being able to increase technology in areas you're not even researching, however. I think your rocket example is a good demonstration of that. Logan Hartke
  2. This is very true. Ian Hogg once said (talking specifically about German artillery of WWII) that the last 10% of performance is 50% of the cost. That was a direct reference to the cost of research. The difference between a plane that has a maximum speed of 400 mph and costs $100,000 and a plane with a maximum speed of 440 mph might be another $100,000. Similarly, artillery had the same issue. Compare the German 24cm K 3 gun and the US M1 240mm howitzer. They fired a similar sized round for a similar effect on the target. Both were designed for counter-battery fire, destruction of fortifications, and any other task where the accurate fire of a long-range, large-caliber gun was deemed useful. They were both very accurate, as well. The main difference was that the German gun could fire over 50% further than the American gun. This made the gun itself almost twice as heavy. The German gun had to be broken into 6 loads compared to the US 240mm howitzer's 2 loads. The American gun also achieved a higher rate of fire (2-2.5 rounds for every round the Germans could get off). Finally, it was cheaper. For every K 3 the Germans built, the Americans built more than 20 M1 240mm howitzers. So, I think that it's just one way of showing the exponential cost of higher level research, something I'd agree with. You want to get from 200 mph to 250 mph with your monoplane fighter? Retractable landing gear will do it for you. Easy and cheap. 250 mph to 300 mph? More streamlining and 200 additional horsepower can probably achieve that. 300 mph to 350 mph? Well, that's going to take a purpose-designed high performance fighter with at least 1000 hp. You're also going to want to go with a thinner wing, too. 350 mph to 400 mph? Now you need a supercharger, and that isn't easy. You're also going to need higher octane fuel. 400 mph to 450 mph? Man, that's not easy. It's going to need a laminar-flow wing, 2000 hp minimum, high-octane fuel with a super-charged engine, etc. 500 mph? You need jet technology. See what I mean? The cost is really exponential and I think that's reflected. Logan Hartke
  3. Thanks, Hubert. I'd love that. To be honest, though, in playing through it, the whole "East Commonwealth" and "West Commonwealth" thing didn't work too well for me. After I played through it, I fired up a couple of Storm of Steel games in PDE and found them far more enjoyable. Japan seemed totally unnatural in Blitz and the split of the countries (such as China) didn't work too well on the giant map. I also hated how, once landed on Australia, most Japanese units couldn't move AT ALL because of the terrain and low movement points. It was very easy to see how easily an Allied player could deny the entire island completely with merely the control of the few cities and (therefore) ports with only the the smallest number of units. Thanks, also, for the great amount of work that you do for the game and series as a whole. You've always been great in responding to player feedback and incorporating it into future releases. I doubt you remember, but I used to play SC1, mod it, and be quite active on the forums back in the day. I made a few scenarios (including 1946 and Cold War), a series of graphics packs (mostly unit, but some medal), and even a sound mod. What I think I'd like to see the most at the moment is more nationalized units types for the minor countries. D.XXIs at lvl 0 and Buffaloes at lvl 1 for Finnish fighters, for example, and Turan I, II, and III for Hungarian lvl 1, 2, & 3 tanks. Thanks again, Logan Hartke
  4. So I've been playing the new WW2 Global Conflict for SC2: Blitz and it's great fun. Now I want to play it, but with the new WAW units. Is there a version of Global Conflict for it that includes the rest of the world and Japan? Thanks in advance, Logan
  5. So I just started playing SC2 again after about a year without. I wanted to get some of the latest mods and scenarios, but saw that it was closing down very soon. I want to download what SC2 stuff is there before it goes away, but I can't see where any new users can register. Am I just missing it or has that been disabled? If I can't register, can someone PM me their login so that I can get everything SC2-related from there before it goes away? Thanks in advance, Logan
  6. Discounts for forum members or original SC owners? Logan Hartke
  7. Hello, I'm Logan Hartke. I made the 1945 Fall Weiss scenario. I really need to write a little readme so that Narayan can upload it to his website. I'm so lazy. Maybe I'll do it this weekend. Anyway, just send me an e-mail and I'll attach the scenario to a reply e-mail. comradeloganov@aol.com Logan Hartke
  8. I either only move through the Turkish-Soviet border with two HQs and/or, more often, I just stick to the coastline as long as the enemy doesn't have surface units gunning for my HQs. In one of my first games I got an HQ stuck and I learned my lesson, never doing that again. Logan Hartke [ October 05, 2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Logan Hartke ]
  9. I've been looking at them and they look GREAT, but, honestly, I'm an old Panzer Leader junkie and that's part of the reason I like the look of the game so much as it is. The game looking like it does in the German version actually takes something away for me. I use the Elite Edition graphics mod with Martinov's hexes, GDS_Starfury's medals, my flags, and my icons. Besides, I put about 20 hours into my different icon sets and I'm keeping them. Thanks but no thanks, Logan Hartke
  10. I'd just like to publically thank John for going to the effort to make this AAR and say that I am waiting with great anticipation for every post he makes on this thread (not to mention the outcome of the game itself). Logan Hartke [ September 28, 2003, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Logan Hartke ]
  11. America deserves tech in Advanced Submarines and Heavy Tanks. America during WWII had the world's most successful, damaging, influential, and survivable submarines. It had the most daring and innovative sub commanders. Due to the flood of British WWII books, all we seem to hear about is German sub warfare, but until the Type XXI U-boats came out, American subs were basically better in every category. American subs also benefitted from a more effective radar and were, BY FAR more lethal than anything that the Germans ever sent down the slipway until the Type XXIs started being built (and they were never the majority of the U-boat force). Also, in Heavy Tank technology, tanks have many things that contribute to their effectiveness. Short-sighted authors love to compare gun calibers and armor thicknesses, but when it comes to the overall tank design, American Shermans had all other countries beat hands down every time. Like I said, historians love the "mine is bigger" argument of armor and caliber, but in actual warfare, these things mean, relatively, very little. 2/3s of the "great" German Panthers broke down before they saw combat in the Ardennes offensives whereas the American Sherman lead "Spearhead" in something no other tank could have done. If equipped with Panthers or Tigers, they'd have broken down long before they'd hit the 75 mile mark. Also, it is a fallacy to think that Panthers, Tigers, and King Tigers ever made the majority of German tank forces. PzKpfw IVs and StuG IIIs formed the majority of tanks when the Tigers and Panthers were entering service and theat balance never shifted for the rest of the war. It is unfair to act like Panthers and Tigers were the mainstay; PzKpfw IVs and StuG IIIs were the mainstay and the Sherman was better that either of those vehicles, so, to be fair, the US deserves an equal or higher Heavy Tank rating than any other country in the game (including the USSR). I'm writing an essay about the Sherman's unfair reputation for school and I'll be sure to put it on the website when it is finished (sometime in December, when it is due). Here is a rough outline I already have done to prove to you that I've researched it well and am not just blowing hot air (like most authors I see anymore). You might not understand all of it since some of it is just note that I understand. Also, the words in italics are book titles. I plan to use MAJOR references there. Also, I think that all American corps, tank corps, and armies should have increased effectiveness (AT and Heavy Tank ratings) due to their INCREDIBLY more advanced and more effective artillery. http://etloh.8m.com/strategy/artil.html Logan Hartke
  12. I could easily do that, its just that I fear people confusing those units with tank units. Also, I think that people would also start to lose respect for the "boots on the ground" and, even though I admit I am a tankaholic, I think that the boots are underappreciated and I almost would feel guilty replacing that icon with an APC and/or IFV, do you know what I mean? Over the weekend, if I have some free time, I could give it a shot, but I'd need to do that with all of the countries. I was thinking for US - M113(corps)/M2 Bradley(army), for UK - FV432(corps)/Warrior(army-even though its 2yrs early), for France - AMX-VTT(corps)/AMX-10(army), for USSR - MTLB or BTR-50(corps)/BMP-1 or BMP-2(army). For France, I'd have picked the VAB instead of the AMX-VTT, but wheels look funny when all other vehicles have tracks in the game. Logan Hartke
  13. Thank you John, but the icons that came with the set were only partly mine. The icons that I sent Narayan (and should come out in a pack, possibly with the mod) are all mine and you should take a look at them when Narayan puts them up. As for the balance issue, I already brought up a lot of issues with Narayan and proposed a fair number of solutions, but fixing all of those things will take time. Narayan, did you get my e-mail(s)? Logan Hartke
  14. Oh, heck, I just went on Amazon. Someone there is actually selling a copy of CC3 for $20. I'm dead serious, buy it NOW! I've not seen one at that price for a while. Ebay has like 3 or 4 for sale right now and you might be able to get one for about that price if you win a bidding war. They usually go up a lot near the end. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/offering/list/-/B00001LDC9/all/ref=sr_pb_a/103-2507791-8900664 Logan Hartke [ September 10, 2003, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: Logan Hartke ]
×
×
  • Create New...