Jump to content

teutonkopf

Members
  • Posts

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by teutonkopf

  1. Hey Guys, back to reality for a minute here... There's lots of stuff that can be improved upon in SC-GC. I can name several major improvements just based on what we already know. Don't forget about these major deficiencies that have become "the elephant in the room". SC-GC II would: Have more major countries: France Italy Significant neutrals with the potential to be majors -- certainly not "minors": Spain (and its Latin American allies) Sweden Have Better graphics: Me109's that look like Me109's More Technologies: Nuclear Weapons More Resources: Oil tracking, e.g. Production, Reserves, Usage Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to knock a great game. However, the idea that there's no where to go after SC-GC is kinda shortsighted. Its got a long way to go, baby! I'm pretty sure this is the start of another thread topic, but I couldn't let the "nowhere to go from here" idea actually go unanswered... (not to mention that the endless back patting is also getting kinda sickening. LOL) v/r, teutonkopf fuhrer teutonicus
  2. ad hoc user defined convoy routes should be in the game. when i get brazil to join the axis i need to be able to define a convoy route from brazil to axis portugal that i will protect with the high seas fleet i've built. historical ports need to be included to increase axis naval potential, eg. austro-hungarian ports in the adriatic such as Pola, and german ports on the north sea, eg. bremen/hanover. historical austro-hungarian ports can be at strength 0 or 1 and I can choose to build them up. cities, oil fields, mines, etc should also be able to be upgraded. if i want to send in german workers and invest resources to build up an occupied city then i should be able to regardless of the whiny little local nationals who have less than 100 percent occupation efficiency. if that means i have to occupy the resource with a Corps unit then fine. v/r, rootin' tueton
  3. Ok, the notion of keeping it simple makes sense. There is a way to keep it simple, but make it more realistic and give more options to the player. Here is the idea: Only have 4 types of land units: Army Corps Paratroops Marines Paratroops and Marines are your special forces. Marines need to replace the current over generalized amphibious free-for-all nonsense.:mad: A tank corps making an amphibious landing? THAT NEVER HAPPENED.:confused: That never will happen. An Army making and amphibious assault? Please, give me a break. You cannot be serious.:eek: Now, back to reality: Marines are no bigger than corps sized. Armies and panzer corps can only land on beach heads already secured by marines. Paratroops are the same, except they need to also have air mobile capability. They should be able to airlift into friendly and unoccupied areas without having to take jump casualties. They should also be able to suffer damage enroute when they parachute or airlift. Enemy fighters can make an attack on them and friendly fighters can fly an escort mission. There is no way fallschirmjagers are going to land in Britain without Air Supremacy. Get real. Now, here is the very interesting part. Armies and Corps have all the attributes: Infantry Engineers AT Tanks AA Arty Motorization You adjust the values how you want to. Give it alot of tank points and there is your panzer army. Yes, you can create a panzer army if you have the cash. Give it alot of Arty and there is your artillery army if thats what you want. (Oh, and by the way, Artillery does not have a range beyond neighboring hexes. Are you for real? The Paris Gun was never built, much less an artillery battalion of them.) This simulates mixing, adding, subtracting and all the funky jazz that the major and minor powers did and that you could do as supreme commander. Pretty cool, huh? I like it! So this would apply to paratroops and marines, but they would have less options and limited values on some options: Paratroops: Infantry weapons Engineers (make the whole unit airborne engineers if you have that cash. Its your money!) Limited AT Limited Arty Limited AA NO Tanks Marines: Infantry weapons Engineers AT Arty AA Limited Tanks v/r, tk
  4. Attached Battalions can also be transferrable to other units. If two units are not in contact with enemy units, then they can switch their attached battalions with eachother regardless of distance. This requires operational movement MPPs. If two units border enemy units and they border eachother, then they can transfer battalions to eachother. In both cases it does not have to be a 1 for 1 swap. A unit can give another unit its battalion as long as the receiving unit does not already have a battalion of that type, e.g. my infantry unit can give its tank battalion and engineer battalion to a tank unit that only has an arty batallion. Given this capability, keeping track of mobile armoured versions of batallions for tank units and softskinned motorized versions for infantry units might be too complicated. This can be simplified by adjusting transfer cost. Transferring battalions from infantry to infantry or from tank to tank costs the regular amount. Transferring from infantry to tank costs more, and transferring from tank to infantry costs less. v/r, tk
  5. Attaching brigades and battalions is a good idea. Normally, an infantry unit does not have tanks. However, if you attach a tank battalion to it then that will give the unit 2 strikes. The first strike is the tank battallion spearhead supported by organic artillery (the units arty value) with infantry cover against enemy infantry. This simulates the tanks making a breakthru. The second strike is the infantry follow-up. Now that is a cool simulation of real tactics. This way, you can attach high level heavy tank battalions to infantry units which simulate the german heavy tank battalions. This gives the unit the ability to counter attacking tank units. The other battalion attachments like arty, AT, AA, Engineers are obvious. I wanted to point out that attaching tank battalions would also be realistic and cool. It gives you the ability to deploy high level heavy tanks against lower level tanks without having to buy an entire tank unit. I guess a tank unit is supposed to be a panzerkorps or something. For the russians I guess it's supposed to be tank armies. Tank units need to be scalable to represent the actual war. There should be Tank Armies, Tank Corps, and Tank Battalions. Tank Armies and Corps would be separate units like the thier infantry counterparts and Tank Battalions would be attached to other units. You can even attach heavy tanks to an existing tank unit to give it even more power. On the other hand, you can attach infantry battalions to tank units to give the tanks more defense against enemy infantry. This is a way to achieve the realistic effects of unit stacking without actually having to stack units. Tanks only or Infantry Only in a hex is too limiting. It does not match the scale. v/r, tk
  6. Here is how you can do combat engineers: allow me to allocate Corps of Engineers points to land units like HQ's, Corps, Armies, Tanks. This will give those units improvements like this: increased attack values against fortifications (abstraction of demolitions) increased ability to defend cities (abstraction of barricades, improved positions, etc.) increased defensive values (abstraction of mines, obstacles, etc.). Again, an actual engineer unit is silly. Combat Engineers or Pioneers do not take up a whole hex and should help a unit occupy a hex, NOT get in the way by taking up the whole hex with the puny combat power of an engineer battalion or brigade or whatever they are supposed to be. :confused: v/r, tk
  7. I don't quite understand the need for an engineer unit. They don't make much sense. I should just be able to click on a tile and select to build something on it without needing an engineer unit sitting on it, or any unit for that matter. If the tile does not border an enemy controlled tile then I do not need combat engineers. In reality, civilians did all that work, and the military engineers overseeing the work certainly did not amount to a unit represented on a global map. If you bomb the tile while I'm building on it then it will mess up my construction time. You don't have to destroy an engineer unit. Engineers can be abstracted as Corps of Engineers Strength. I can focus those points on one tile and build something really quick or spread them around and take my sweet time. When the construction tile gets bombed then I lose Corps of Engineers points and have to replenish them. Don't make me have a globe trotting engineer unit that can only build one thing at a time. That's just plain silly. v/r, tk
  8. Arty, AT, and AA should also be upgradeable attributes on panzer units. They would be more expensive because they would all have to be mobile armored version, e.g. Hummels for Arty, StuGs for AT, etc. Arty would increase soft attack. AT would increase tank defense. AA would increase air defense. The reason you would have AT for a panzer unit is because it would be cheaper than elite reinforcements or advanced tanks but still be a way to counter enemy armor. This would simulate the germans' shift to higher AT production as they shifted to a defensive war and demands for increased numbers of armour with limited manufacturing capability. v/r, tk
  9. What do the convoy ship sillouhettes mean? :confused: They look cool, but I'm not sure what they do. :cool: They're not just by the ports in the screenshot. v/r, tk
  10. It would be cool to be able to cherry pick experience points from your units and reallocate them to specific units. The germans did this a lot in WWII. This way elite units can be formed like the Herman Goering, Grossdeutschland, JV44, etc. This could be a way to emulate small unit leader assignments without actually having tactical HQ units. v/r, tk
  11. Radar Stations are a balanced element in this manner: The guy with the radar stations is able to intercept a single enemy air unit with MULTIPLE units of his own like the British did. Of course, it also increases the effectiveness of a single unit. The guy flying against the radar stations can destroy them. This reduces the effectiveness of enemy interceptors. Much more, doing so GREATLY reduces the effectiveness of defenders when the attacker has a very short time to target like the germans attacking southern Britain, eastern France, Holland, western Russia, etc. v/r, Teutonkopf, aka "the Rootin' Teuton"
  12. China? Oh, REALLY!?!? Is this an attempt to sell more copies of SC2 in China? I would say that a country that has historical build limits of Corps=100 and Everything Else=0, and a tech ladder of max research=1 would hardly be a candidate for a major power. There is no "what if" capability with China. :confused: France, on the other hand, has huge "what if" potential. What if France concentrated its tanks? What if France attacked Germany during Fall Weiss? What if the French Govt fled to Toronto? What if France accepted Churchill's offer to unite with England? Ok, then you would have a single UK-France Major. Now that would be a cool CHOICE. Dont' force it on us! :mad: If you're going to make China a major that's fine. You can't really have Japanese yang without Chinese yin. On the same token you can't have German yang without French yin. If you're going to make China a major then you need to make France a major and you need to make Italy a major. Italy actually developed jet technology and naval power. Their air force was capable but the leadership was incompetent. The What If potential of Italy is equal or greater to that of China. What if Italy did not declare war on britain, but dedicated its entire forces to fight Russia? Now, that is a game changer! :eek: What if China dedicated its entire forces to fight Japan? Well, it did, and it didn't amount to much. What if China dedicated its entire force to fight Japan? Oh, wait, I already said that. Not many options here, folks. Haven't you seen that Jet Li movie Kiss of the Dragon? Well, I talked to that French Police Captain from the movie, and he is really, REALLY, not happy with your decision to make France a minor and China a major! I wouldn't make any promotional tours in Paris if I were you... What I would be worried about is any stops in the NY, NJ area. I talked to Tony Soprano and he said, "About that SC2 Italy thing -- FUGGEDDABOUTIT!" v/r, tk
  13. Ground unit modes make sense. Scorched Earth would also be a cool ground unit mode in addition to regular "flee". Partisan modes are the answer to the "surreal" behaviour of current partisan units. Zones of Control sound interesting for navies. Could you please elaborate on the rules of how this would be implemented. Why not add ZOC to land units and air units. It makes sense for them too. Green Troops are experience ZERO are they not? That's already represented in the game. Germans had green troops also at the end of the war. Russian fanatics are just green troops (experience ZERO) set to mode "fight to the death" (To Death). That would be represented by adding modes. Well, it wouldn't totally reflect the Russian Human Minesweepers or Japanese Bonzai Charges so this could be a special attribute... How about this: Add Special Attributes to HQ units. Bonzai/Kamikaze would be for Japanese. Commisars/Purges would be for Russians. Leonides/Hitlerjugend would be for Germans. Never Surrender/The Few would be for the British. Uncommon Valor/Nuts would be for Americans. These attributes would have varying percentages. The Japanese and Russian definitely were more suicidal than the West. It would be more historical. This is an alternative to special units. Just as most of those special units were really just green troops with "fight to death" mode, the SS were just experienced troops with "fight to death" mode. The difference is that their chances of disobeying are lower than other units. This could be represented by a HQ technology called "Ideological Units" or something along those lines. Their numbers would be limited somehow. Maybe in the nation settings or unit build settings. These are good ideas, but the modes and special units seem to overlap... What about cherry picking. What about the ability to redistribute experience among units. In this manner you could create a Herman Goering or Grossdeutschland if you wanted to or Marine Raiders. That would be very interesting indeed... v/r, tkj fuhrer-T d. t-dogs
  14. In SC2 I have no way of destroying british radar capability. However, in the real Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe had the choice to destroy them, and nearly did. I'd like to have the choice to destroy them. The current SC2 does not allow me to target the enemy's radar. This was not isolated to the Battle of Britain. It was a key American strategy in Desert Storm. v/r, tk
  15. @xwormwood: Teufel Hunden is the product of American propaganda and Marine Corps legend. I never bothered researching it's grammar. I see know that it is not grammatically correct german, but hey, what can you expect from the press of a germanophobic WWI America where you were required to kiss the flag in the town square if you were caught speaking german? :confused: The American story is that the germans described the attacking Marines as the "hounds of hell" during the Battle of Belleau Wood in World War ONE. Totenkopf it is. My attempt at the "oe" representation of an umlaut "o" seems to have been misplaced. Now that reminds me of another german word that is part of modern Marine vocabulary: Kopfjager. It is used by the Marine Sniper community and can be found posted at Marine Sniper School. My Sergeant called me "Kopfjager" after I put a .223 M-16 round right between the eyes of a head and torso target from the 500 yard line with iron sights in the prone position. :cool: I assume it also comes from World War One when Marines fought germans. Hey, that gives me an idea for another pun: Teutonkopfjager. v/r, Teutonkopfjager Fuhrer Teutonicus der "Teutonhunden"
  16. CSS, I salute you for your service and loyalty to our nation. I was in the Marines myself. My only exposure to the Army was at jump school. My grandpa was the son of german immigrants and fought as a tank killer against the germans in WWII. I'm sure one of your family elders was up close and familiar with german Panzers also. Tank killer vs german Panzers, German vs Overwhelming Allied Material Superiority -- neither one sounds like an easy job. So lets not kid ourselves, we are wannabees compared to them. That being said, I realize that us small units like the Marines and Special Forces were not considered very strategic back in the day when Army was still Cold War sized. However, we are considered very strategic assets in these days now that the Army's not so huge anymore, huh? Now, in the massive scale of WWII the Marines and Special Forces may not be considered strategic by some. Heck, we would only represent a few units on the whole map if it were based on the raw numbers that you pointed to earlier. However, we are represented on the map because of our special abilities. Those special abilities are things like airborne, amphibious, marksmanship, etc. Well, those abilities are dependent on technologies that need to be upgraded to improve our capability and survivability. Things like amphibious warfare, long range aircraft, infantry weapons, anti-tanks weapons, etc. You can't just say, 'hey, these Marines like to swim so thats all we need for amphibious warfare' or 'hey, those guys like to run around in the woods at night, so thats all we need for night warfare'. No, you need technology to do that. You need amtracks, bazookas, and night sensors to do all that fun stuff, right? You keep saying, "Tactical foul, tactical foul -- no tactics allowed! This is for grand strategy thinkers only!" To that I say this: Go play Kasparov Chess if you want grand strategy only! But seriously, you can't get anymore tactical than Infantry Weapons. I cannot think of a single organic weapon of an infantry battalion that would be considered "strategic". :confused: But they are represented in the game since day one. Me and my M-16 are not very strategic despite the fact that I shot the range high in Okinawa (and yes, there were even some Army Special Forces there shooting the course with us Jarheads). However, when the entire U.S. Army has semi-automatic rifles, and the Wehrmacht only has bolt-action rifles, or the Finns have submachine guns and the Russians only have bolt action rifles, then that has a strategic impact on the battlefield. When you give all your infantry night vision scopes and the other guy doesn't have any then that has a major impact on the battlefield. So if you want to say that it is not "strategic" that is fine. However, the game is not purely strategic. There are plenty of tactical technologies in the game. Tactical Anti-tank weapons are needed to counter the "strategy" of Tank Armies! Tactical Night Warware is needed to counter the "strategy" of british Bomber Command! Anti-aircraft radar may be great for the Battle of Britain when both sides are pretty evenly matched. However, it's not going to do me a bit of good if I try to send Advanced Aircraft Level-ZERO Bf-110's against allied P-51's in broad daylight! Radarmen are not going to fly my planes at night, either. I need Bf-110's equipped with night warfare specialized radar and trained night fighter pilots and then I will make the british seriously reconsider the notion that they can avoid bomber losses at night. In an earlier post you said I need to read about grand strategy. Where am I supposed to read about that, and whats more, I guarantee it wouldn't match up with the current SC2 anyway. I seriously doubt your beloved treatise on "grand strategy" would mention infantry weapons as grand strategy. That being said, I did look at the manual and there "Naval Warfare" is listed as "Gun Laying Radar" in a beta screenshot. So based on that, your point that Night Warfare is covered by Naval Warfare seems to be correct. On land, based on the historical reality of the actual war, night warfare did not have much impact because it was implemented too late in the war. So maybe I can see your point there. Plus the fact that you were in Special Forces gives your personal opinion credibility, though I still disagree. I think the night Panthers demonstrated the potential. Finally, in the air you are totally wrong. The air war at night was grand strategy at its finest. The bombers lost more men over Europe than the Marines did in the Pacific. Strategic Bombing without the Night Bombing option is very historically inaccurate and kinda silly. Its almost as lame as the current SC2 naval warfare. Any Air Force guys out there? Chime in any time you get around to it. The Army and Marines debating Strategic Bombing is kinda silly, but hey, I'm not the one who pulled the "Special Forces" card. LOL. So how about this: Nightwarfare for ground and air units. Lets call it Night Attack 1-5. I set my Bf110 Night Attack 5 unit to "intercept only" and "night attack = 100%". That way they kick the tar out of british bomber command at night, and hide from the P-51's during the day. Did I say that? I meant: catch up on well deserved sleep during the day! For land units the nightwarfare could have less impact for you strategic crybabies out there. Plus, it would be more historically accurate. We can't have Nachtpanthers driving the allies back into the sea, now can we? And by the way CSS, you of all people should know that Teutonkopf is not the same as Toetenkopf. So, CSS, you can call me Teufelhunden, which is proper german for U.S. Marine. Devil Dog for short. Hey, that gives me an idea for another pun: Teutonhunden. v/r, Teutonhunden, aka Teutonkopf Fuhrer Teutonicus
  17. I've played PDE: Storm of Steel, and Shattered Alliance so far... v/r, tk-ft
  18. I am a history buff. WWII is probably my strongest area. Germany is probably my strongest area within the genre. (America is really my strongest area, but I don't count that since I'm an American and that is a given.) Due to the disturbing nature of the some of the images found on the buntaland website's main page, I'd have to reject any association with "Bunta". v/r = very respectfully. v/r, tk
  19. @Rambo: I've never heard the term Bunta before. I did a websearch and the term seems to have several connotations. Can't say I'm sure what you're talking about... v/r, tk
  20. @Rambo: tk stands for Teutonkopf. My signature is a pun for Totenkopf, Furor Teutonicus (Death's Head, Teutonic Fury), but mine means "German Head, German Leader" (Teutonkopf, Fuhrer Teutonicus). I made that up. But hey, tk is also a pun for Teutonic Knight -- whatta you know! That'll work! Yeah, Yeah, I meant to do that... That's the ticket! v/r, tk fuhrer-T
  21. Can you point me to the previous discussion? I'd like to read it. I did a search before making my post, but it said "HQ" was too short (less than 3 characters) and would not perform the search. So I did a search for "headquarters" which returned no results... v/r, tk
  22. I think Night Warfare can definitely be considered as a valid Grand Strategy. Night bombing was a grand strategy of anglo-american bomber command in the face of the german grand strategy of conventional air power. Night fighters were a german grand strategy to counter the anglo-american grand strategy of night bombing. Night warfare was a german army grand strategy to counter the allied grand strategy of air power. Night naval warfare was an american grand strategy to counter the japanese grand strategy of conventional naval power. In all these cases, night warfare was an effective grand strategy to counter or overcome an enemy's parity or superiority in a particular successful grand strategy. Night warfare is a current american grand strategy in modern warfare. In none of this cases was night warfare an automatic advancement in stride with progress in other technologies alread represented in SC2. An Me-262 or P-51 did not have night warfare capability. On the contrary, Bf-110's and Ju-88's were given night warfare capability that made them potent counters to allied conventional air superiority. A Panther did not automatically have night warfare capability. The japanese superbattleships did not automatically have night warfare capability. In terms of turn time scope, selecting the percentage of Night Warfare when attacking means you are directing your forces to conduct that percentage of their attacks over a 2-week period at night. A defender automatically has to defend that same percentage at night, but if he doesn't have the Night Warfare capability then he will suffer proportionately to the enemie's night warfare capability. What it in effect accomplishes is a greater chance of success for the attacker than he would otherwise have given the defender's inferior night warfare capability. If I'm facing an enemy that is at parity or superior on a large scale with his success in a certain grand strategy to date, and I come up with a way to really make him suffer or negate his effectiveness on a large scale, ie. Night Warfare, then I would call that a grand strategy of my own. This was demonstrated by the german night fighters, the american naval gunners, and the german army in WW2, and the potential for this technology as a force multiplier is being demonstrated in current modern warfare by the U.S. military. In land and naval warfare this could be programmed by applying a formulaic reduction to the defenders defensive values and a formulaic increase to the attackers demoralization chances. In air warfare it would be a reduction to the interceptors' air attack values. The interesting thing about introducing night warfare as a percentage is that it would increase the defensive values of bombers without the bombers even having a value of 1 in Night Warfare as long as the interceptors have a Night Warfare value of 0. Night Warfare allows for the simulation of the very intriguing night war over europe and greatly increases the historical accuracy of the game. This would add a whole new dimension to the game relatively easily and would enliven the imaginations of the players. It would add play balance to the allies' material superiority and air power in europe, and to the japanese naval might in the pacific. In terms of player interface, all attacks would include the option to adjust the night attack percentage. The default could be zero, and it could be adjusted by a pop-up window or by right clicking on the unit before attack in the "Set Mode" submenu. The percentage could be adjusted in increments of 10%, for example. The turn summary and status line (bottom of screen) messages would inform the defender he was being night attacked. Defense would be automatic. Parenthetically, in terms of programming, a night warfare module could be built and called whenever the night warfare attack percentage is greater than zero. It would then compare the combatants, ie. air vs air, air vs land, air vs naval, naval vs naval, etc. and apply the appropriate modifiers to be passed back to the main routine and applied to the end results. v/r, tk fuhrer-T
  23. I think Naval HQ Units should be added. In a global map naval warfare becomes critical. Naval HQ Units would be assigned to a flagship and would transfer to another flagship should their flagship be sunk. There would be a small chance that the Naval HQ Unit would be destroyed when their flagship is sunk and a normal chance that the Naval HQ Unit's strength would be reduced. The command range of Naval HQ Units would be greater than Land HQ Units and the number of attachments may also need to be different. In a global map the roles of Yamamoto, Nimitz, Doenitz, Cunningham, Halsey, Spruance, Ozawa, Kurita, Kretschmer, and other naval commanders CANNOT be ignored or trivialized! v/r, teuton-K
  24. I think Radio Command & Control should be added as an upgradeable research technology. Each unit type would have it as an upgradeable attribute that would increase the unit's effectiveness. Radio Command & Control allowed under-armored, under-gunned german tanks to fair well against heavier soviet tanks which was a game-changer in the Battle of Russia. It allowed german close air support to be more effective which was a game-changer in the Blitzkrieg. It allowed german bombers to be more effective at night bombing (see my Night Warfare post) which was a game-changer in the Blitz. It allowed british fighters to be more effective at interception which was a game changer in the Battle of Britain. It increased the effectiveness of american artillery at mass concentration of fire which was a game-changer in North Africa and Europe. In each of these examples those units' higher radio command and control capability made them superior to their counterparts among the other major powers and gave them a distinct advantage. It could also be upgradeable for HQ units and they would finally have an upgradeable tech. As such, it would further increase the effectiveness of units as a representation of better combined arms coordination. German panzers and stukas used their UHF radios for well-coordinated attacks which was a game-changer in the Battle of France. v/r, Teutonkopf Fuhrer Teutonicus
  25. I think radar stations should be represented in the game as buildable structures like fortifications. I think they are essentially fortifications for air warfare in the sense that they impede attackers and bolster defenders. This way they can be strategically placed by defenders to counter likely avenues of approach; and conversely, this anti-aircraft capability can be targeted for destruction by attackers. They are especially important in campaigns were the front lines of land conflict are much more static in the form of coastal perimeters like the Battle of Britain and the Pacific Theatre. In a global map coastlines become much more strategic. In the fluid front lines of expanses like the russian steppes they are not practical, but interestingly they would play a key role in defending regions bordered by mountains. They could be built along mountain ranges like the Urals, Rockies, and Alps to defend Siberia against a european Russia based Luftwaffe, the American Midwest against a Western States based Imperial Japanese Air Force, and Germany against an Italian peninsula based U.S. Air Force. v/r, tk
×
×
  • Create New...