Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
teutonkopf

Radar Stations

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need a tactical sqaud leader type game for these units this is a GRAND STRATEGY game. There were neary 12,000,000 men in the German Army. In the entire Radar sites there where about 27,000. A corp is roughly 30,000 to 90,000 men, an Army is 100,000 to 250,000.

Please read up on the scale of size before you request Tactical applications to a Grand Stratiegic scale game.

Heros of Stalingrad would be equal to all your suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you had radar, you'd have a better idea where the enemy of 12,000,000 was.

You say "strategic" "strategic" "strategic"......but one bomb wiped out Hiroshima. One radar plane could be the difference at Midway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but one bomb wiped out Hiroshima.

[...]One radar plane could be the difference at Midway.

One strategic bomb, that is.

And one radar plane is represented by the technology ladder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radar stations are strategic but if you allow them(they would mostly benefit the Germans)will the Allies get somehting in return like being able to drop chaff?(aluminum strips that made it look like the Allies had millions of planes coming)We sometimes were able to jam German radar.I guess you all can see where this will lead if we add in radar.To much going on then.Do the Brits.get it for the Battle of Britain?Made a huge difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radar stations are strategic but if you allow them(they would mostly benefit the Germans)will the Allies get somehting in return like being able to drop chaff?(aluminum strips that made it look like the Allies had millions of planes coming)We sometimes were able to jam German radar.I guess you all can see where this will lead if we add in radar.To much going on then.Do the Brits.get it for the Battle of Britain?Made a huge difference.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

teutonkopf I agree that that the Germans nearly did destroy Brit.radar but imho if you add radar then you have to add counters to it and then it gets the game much more complicated and im assuming Hubert has to factor in the A.I.How hard will be for the A.I to know how to use and re-act and try to destroy radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
teutonkopf I agree that that the Germans nearly did destroy Brit.radar but imho if you add radar then you have to add counters to it and then it gets the game much more complicated and im assuming Hubert has to factor in the A.I.How hard will be for the A.I to know how to use and re-act and try to destroy radar.

I think this could be implemented as a 'upgrade' to a city or resource that gets damaged when bombed. Would not require a unit and so would not involve stacking issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arado, Good question. The way I've seen it work in other games is that it has a range (probably increasable by research). Any enemy bombing any region in that range would see increased air defense from any enemy fighters that intercept on the basis that they would have the enemie's attack vector long before they arrived allowing a more organized defence.

I guess the counter would be bombing the installation itself reducing its effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing im not liking about this is that it will mostly benefit Germany.As the game is setup now the Germans have some HUGE atvantages they didnt have in WW2.Id say if you bring this in(im not saying im against it)then you would have to give the Allies something fairly substantial in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about if radar is technology build that could be added to headquarter units?

I woud suggest i.e. to have the Visibility Range of Cities / Resources enhanced. Actually the Range is 1. So if Radar Tech is improuved this Range goes from 2up to 6.

In order to show the early stages of Radar tech, the engine picks 25% (raising) of the Map positions around the Resource and shows Units ( if there are ).

and while Increasing Radar tech, there also increases the Coverage of the Randomly picked Map Positions by i.e. 5 %.

A full strength tech Radar System would pick then 50 % of the Fileds around Range 6 of a Resource and show any ennemy Units ( if they are there )..

Would be nice, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking of how radar improvements lead to better command & control of fighter intercepts. A headquarters adds its supply and rating to units, why not provide a technology build that adds an additional level of detail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing im not liking about this is that it will mostly benefit Germany.As the game is setup now the Germans have some HUGE atvantages they didnt have in WW2.Id say if you bring this in(im not saying im against it)then you would have to give the Allies something fairly substantial in return.

There are a few ways you could handle that, IMO:

1) Have the UK and US start ahead of the Germans in radar tech and make research expensive.

2) Have the UK start the game with their radar system already deployed in all of the southern cities and make it expensive to deploy it.

Either way the German's will have to divert funds normally used elsewhere (sub / advanced air / heavy tanks) if they want to catch up with the West.

There's no free lunch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LampCord(how did you ever come up with that name?)thats a good idea.I also think that

PowerGmbH idea is neat although back in WW2 radar never really did much(if anything) for spotting ground objects.It would be an interesting upgrade and you sure could surprise an attacker who thinks he cant be seen.

carverrt idea is more accurate and imho each side should be able to determine how many escorts and interceptors they choose to use for a given attack or defence.The consequences for underescorting or not using enough intereceptors would help greatly determine the losses and if the actual attack can still proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to apologise to everyone who has sent me a private message and I didnt reply.I just realised(actually my wife pointed it out)that I have a private message box.

MAJOR stupid attack on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...just an idea on radar:

Engineers could build radar stations just like they build fortifications. A radar station would be a "tile improvement".

When an enemy plane flies over a radar tile, it would trigger a readiness bonus or penalty... The readiness bonus could be added to the interceptor/AA unit, or a penalty could be subtracted from the attacking enemy plane that overflew the radar station.

Higher radar tech levels could result in a higher readiness bonus/penalty.

A radar station would be destroyed if bombed... and, the engineer unit would have to rebuild it. The engineer unit could be bombed while rebuilding the radar station, taking losses. The cost of replacing engineer losses would represent the cost of rebuilding radar station. Complete loss of the available engineer unit(s) would leave a player without radar stations for a good while... until he can recruit a new engineer unit.

Countermeasures would be represented by bombing the radar tile and the engineer unit rebuilding the tile. More advanced bombers, tactical bombers, or fighters would be more likely to destroy the target.

The attacker could bomb the radar tiles and the engineer building or rebuiliding the tiles. Alternatively, the attacker could relocate his/her air units to avoid passing over the radar tile, but range and geography would limit the attacker's options. ...just like in real life.

The defender would have to build a belt of radar tiles and constantly rebuild destroyed tiles.

Hubert may want to place London on England's east coast (on the River Thames perhaps?) so that the allied player can build a radar belt south of London. :)

And, we all have one more reason to go for Operation Sea Lion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read a lot of teutenkopf's suggestions and although they have merit I must emphasize that we must beware of "feature creep" as many posters have brought up here and was a major point of masterclaude's posts, you've got to approach each addition with scrutiny.

I understand the significance of radar, it was very important, but it has to be incorporated in a way that allows the engine to handle it in a fashion that exemplifies SC, abstracted. IMO its already in there with naval warfare tech, advanced air tech, advanced artillery and rocketry. I've probably missed one....or two!

Thing is you create something, you have to have a counter also, and guess what, the AI will have to handle another possibility and you know what that means. Since I don't really play the AI much what bothers me the most is the length of time SC turns now require. I'm not talking the short scenarios, I'm talking the grand campaigns and this global model is going to be the epitome of SC, requiring a lot of time to do a turn when all the belligerents are at war.

Think about it, probably an hour to do a turn of the grand campaign in the later turns. If you're doing a mirror, two hours. Its going to take awhile to complete a game. I remember the old SC days, not saying I want to go back, where turns took maybe 15 minutes max.

Just want to keep everything in the proper perspective and not forget why SC is the best strategic wargame out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks arado....................

well.................how about it guys?????/ Colin, Rambo, Bill, Teuten...etc, etc....

do we have a consensus here?;):P:D

I'm still trying to get over the estimated hour to do a turn mentioned in your previous post! I've started timing my Global turns, and they seem to vary from just under five minutes to perhaps a bit more than ten at peak times. But I've always been very quick with doing my turns, and I'm not including time spent watching the video in PBEM games, but unless someone is spending a lot of time thinking about it (and I don't tend to) then I cannot see a turn taking anywhere near an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...