Garrisons and A-bomb

[SeaMonkey]

Sure do like doing business with a professional developer like Hubert Cater, calm, collected, receptive, the epitome of the way commerce should be done for goods and services.

See, I consider, and it seems HC somewhat concurs, that the final beta testing begins with his presentation of a solid piece of stable software. You know Hubert, this kind of culminates the SC evolution with this base code. I'm trying real hard to look down the road for further progress with this engine, excluding the Global tweaks, but it looks kind of cloudy.:confused:

Here's to your enlightened vision to conjure up a revolutionary new platform, raising my caballito of Cuervo, Reserva de la Familia, and toasting your successful endeavors....hear, here!

And thanks for such a wonderful series that SC is.

[AZGungHo]

I concur with and second SeaMonkey's wise remarks!!

[Paul 'Papa' Hausser]

My friends and I bought several copies of SC2 then it came. Just like me, they did complain about the lack of a garrison/divisional unit.

Still we bought WaW then it came, because we wanted to support the development effort. At the same time I wrote regularly at the Forum to share our concerns.

Later then Patton and Pacific were released, still without a garrison/division unit, we gave up and didn’t even bother to buy the game anymore. I also left the Forum.

I got very excited then I saw that GC was on its way, because a global campaign has always been a dream besides a bigger European map and divisional units. I got my friends attention to this and to my posts at the Forum. For the third time we feel disappointed.

We don’t feel we need to support the game since WaW, because we’ve pointed out the need of garrison/divisional units so many times over the years with no success.

We can wait for a bigger European map and an a-bomb as well as a new organization system that includes divisions and still buy the game to support its development – again.

But we’ll not buy the game if it lacks a garrison/divisional unit, which are an absolutely necessary unit. We also feel that it should’ve been included a long time ago and the fact that it hasn’t feels a little bit nonchalant to us as players.

If it’s not included then GC is released, we’ll wait until it’s included in a patch or a mod as Hubert wrote. Otherwise we’ll wait to the next game in the series.

Sorry, but that is just how important a garrison/divisional unit is for realism as well as game play to us.

This text is supported by: Andreas, Chris, Eric, Gustav, Kristian, Raul, Richard and Vavra.

[Hubert Cater]

Paul,

No problem and I can understand if the game will not meet your expectations. Reality is, and no matter how much we try, we cannot satisfy every demand and this is primarily due to the fact that development time is always limited and some options are not easy to implement as others or it might be as simple as us not feeling it warrants the change, i.e. stacking comes to mind. Now, none of this may be the case regarding Garrison units but it does look like I might be missing just how important this unit is so I'd be willing to discuss it further if you are equally inclined.

Key is of course not to just add new features but to make sure we add them correctly. In that regard I encourage your friends to participate as well in the discussion as well as anyone else that might feel like contributing. We have had similar discussions in our Beta Forums and it is always healthy (when the crunch is not on) to contemplate new ideas and/or different points of views.

* * *

I might as well get the ball rolling and say the biggest problem I see in game is (as previously mentioned) that I'd like to maintain the notion that a player will in game have to make the tough decisions as to what he can reasonably cover with his units throughout the map, and of course this includes vulnerable cities, invasion areas and front lines.

For example in Weapons and Warfare Germany normally uses its Corps for this task and if I were to introduce Garrison units I would then prefer to lower their Corps builds to compensate, i.e. in Fall Weiss Germany can build 20 Corps and if let's say it could build 5 Garrison units then I would lower the Corps build to 15. This of course is just a general example of how I would prefer the math to be but it could also be something like 10 Garrison units and then only 10 Corps and so on.

I guess my question to you is how you feel about the above type of adjustment if we were to introduce Garrison units and if you would approach it differently?

Again, I'm just trying to flesh out how a Garrison unit implementation would look in game from a development point of view.

Thanks,

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

Sure do like doing business with a professional developer like Hubert Cater, calm, collected, receptive, the epitome of the way commerce should be done for goods and services.

See, I consider, and it seems HC somewhat concurs, that the final beta testing begins with his presentation of a solid piece of stable software. You know Hubert, this kind of culminates the SC evolution with this base code. I'm trying real hard to look down the road for further progress with this engine, excluding the Global tweaks, but it looks kind of cloudy.:confused:

Here's to your enlightened vision to conjure up a revolutionary new platform, raising my caballito of Cuervo, Reserva de la Familia, and toasting your successful endeavors....hear, here!

And thanks for such a wonderful series that SC is.

Thanks SeaMonkey and let's just say we might still have a few surprises left in us for future development. Hopefully SC Global sells well enough so that these ideas will eventually come to fruition... so in that vein, definitely don't hesitate to spread the word

[bowenw]

Sure do like doing business with a professional developer like Hubert Cater, calm, collected, receptive, the epitome of the way commerce should be done for goods and services.

See, I consider, and it seems HC somewhat concurs, that the final beta testing begins with his presentation of a solid piece of stable software. You know Hubert, this kind of culminates the SC evolution with this base code. I'm trying real hard to look down the road for further progress with this engine, excluding the Global tweaks, but it looks kind of cloudy.:confused:

Here's to your enlightened vision to conjure up a revolutionary new platform, raising my caballito of Cuervo, Reserva de la Familia, and toasting your successful endeavors....hear, here!

And thanks for such a wonderful series that SC is.

Ohhhhhhhh good lord are you looking for a free copy, sounds like it, if you dont have anything better to do then hang on these forums why dont you hop over to the Alamo and see if it has become a sanctury for illegal immigrants. If you need help you will always have Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and Captain Dickinson and a hundred and eighty four more:D

Bo

[SeaMonkey]

Surely Bo I don't have to remind you that nothing is free, always a cost, someone pays somewhere, the monetary transactions being the cheap ones. The real treasures have a much higher price, the sacrificial degrees can extend to the loss of your life...this life.

A fitting analogy, the Alamo, the place is sacred to us Texicans, been there many times and just stood.....stood.....steadfast....as I feel those founding fighters did, like our Fathers did when this country was created, a serious leap of faith, a trust in a higher power, now there's a cost..........for everything else there is mastercard.

Ohhh and Bo, remember, I put my pants on one leg at a time, just as I'm sure that you do to. Whatever class that is, we are both a member and I would be more than honored to play a game of Global with you.

[Desert Dave]

Desert Dave I have never seen anyone explain things the way you do.I LOVE IT.You definetly provide that wayout there answer.Most entertaining.

Say... didn't they name a jet bomber after you?

Sure, no wheels, so it was launched from a trolley and when the deed was done, landed on a skid?

And, it was used to attack the bridge at Remagen in March of '45, yes?

Whoa Way-Cool Joe!

Somebody up there must really favor you, cuz that is one fine-lined air-craft!

Good thing them Nasty Boys didn't make a whole lot them! And, in wholesale lots, lots earlier.

[bowenw]

Surely Bo I don't have to remind you that nothing is free, always a cost, someone pays somewhere, the monetary transactions being the cheap ones. The real treasures have a much higher price, the sacrificial degrees can extend to the loss of your life...this life.

A fitting analogy, the Alamo, the place is sacred to us Texicans, been there many times and just stood.....stood.....steadfast....as I feel those founding fighters did, like our Fathers did when this country was created, a serious leap of faith, a trust in a higher power, now there's a cost..........for everything else there is mastercard.

Ohhh and Bo, remember, I put my pants on one leg at a time, just as I'm sure that you do to. Whatever class that is, we are both a member and I would be more than honored to play a game of Global with you.

Yeah right you think I am crazy taking Rommel on[your other name]I will play you on one condition you have to use fog of war and I dont:D

Bo

[SeaMonkey]

Don't forget to reload all you want, too! I love adversity, I'm sure you'd be a worthy opponent in any manner, but I'll gauge my success on the presumption that after we're through you'll be able to beat any SC player.

[arado234]

Desert Dave I have a signed print by some of the Germans who flew that attack.Its a painting(artist proof)of some ME262s and Arado234s attempting to bomb the bridge.Its called:The Bridge at Remagan, by Robert Taylor.

[arado234]

Xwormwood I was reading more about the German nerve gas program and the Germans truley believed we had ALOT more of it than they did.So even if the Allies dropped an atomic bomb or two on Germany that still doesnt change the fact that the Germans believed we had nerve gas and would use it.I cant see then by dropping atomic bombs on Germany would cause Hitler to use his nerve gas.We were already bombing alot of German cities to rubble.

[arado234]

Forgot to add this.You can also bet that if the Germans had developed the Atomic bomb they surely would have used it,so whynot put it in the game then.Neither side had any plans to use poison gas.

[xwormwood]

arado234, sometime you just need a little inspiration to think / one step more.

I believe that a new devastating weapon would have Hitler inspired to use something to retaliate.

He even changed the Luftwaffes main objective in the Battle of Britain to take revenge for an english bombing run on Berlin.

Of course, there is no ultimate guaranty, but personaly, i think that is a very probable option he might have used. He didn't cared much about civilians, german or enemy.

Even though neither side had plans to use poison gas, there was always the possibility that exactly this could have happened.

Churchill thought about it, the USA delivered poisenous gas ammo to the Italian front.

wiki-quote:

"...William L. Shirer, in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, writes that the British high command considered the use of chemical weapons as a last-ditch defensive measure in the event of a Nazi invasion of Britain. On the night of December 2, 1943, German Ju 88 bombers attacked the port of Bari in Southern Italy, sinking several American ships– among them SS John Harvey, which was carrying mustard gas intended for use in retaliation by the Allies if German forces initiated gas warfare. The presence of the gas was highly classified, and authorities ashore had no knowledge of it– which increased the number of fatalities, since physicians, who had no idea that they were dealing with the effects of mustard gas, prescribed treatment improper for those suffering from exposure and immersion.

The whole affair was kept secret at the time and for many years after the war (in the opinion of some, there was a deliberate and systematic cover-up). According to the U.S. military account, "Sixty-nine deaths were attributed in whole or in part to the mustard gas, most of them American merchant seamen"[32] out of 628 mustard gas military casualties.[33] The large number of civilian casualties among the Italian population were not recorded. Part of the confusion and controversy derives from the fact that the German attack was highly destructive and lethal in itself, also apart from the accidental additional effects of the gas (it was nicknamed "The Little Pearl Harbor"), and attribution of the causes of death between the gas and other causes is far from easy.[34][35]

Rick Atkinson, in his book The Day of Battle, describes the intelligence that prompted Allied leaders to deploy mustard gas to Italy. This included Italian intelligence that Adolf Hitler had threatened to use gas against Italy if the state changed sides, and prisoner of war interrogations suggesting that preparations were being made to use a "new, egregiously potent gas" if the war turned decisively against Germany. Atkinson concludes that "No commander in 1943 could be cavalier about a manifest threat by Germany to use gas...."

I once read that there was a real chance that the Allies might have used poison gas after this incident, as the thought the german bomber did have droped bombs with poison gas (the whole matter of this delivery on this allied ship was top secret).

Again, there is no guaranty that Hitler might have used the nerve agents, but he did had a knack for an "an eye for an eye" revenge system.

Be it treatment of prisoners, bombing of London (even in 1945), etc. etc.

Well, maybe there should be a game option to allow everything, for every side.

A-Bombs, nerve agents, poison gas.

But i don't think that the game would benefit from it.

[arado234]

I realise what you are saying X

[Paul 'Papa' Hausser]

"I'd be willing to discuss it further if you are equally inclined."

Thanks Hubert! If I can be to any help, I’ll do my very best.

“I encourage your friends to participate as well in the discussion”

I’ll also try to get some of my friends involved.

“I guess my question to you is how you feel about the above type of adjustment if we were to introduce Garrison units and if you would approach it differently?”

As I mentioned earlier I’ve not played the game since the Patton expansion was released, so I’ve forgotten the unit statistics. There can I read the values for corps, armies and so on?

I need that info to be able to come with helpful answers. Spontaneously I feel that maybe the approach should be differently then what you suggested.

“For example in Weapons and Warfare Germany normally uses its Corps for this task and if I were to introduce Garrison units I would then prefer to lower their Corps builds to compensate, i.e. in Fall Weiss Germany can build 20 Corps and if let's say it could build 5 Garrison units then I would lower the Corps build to 15. This of course is just a general example of how I would prefer the math to be but it could also be something like 10 Garrison units and then only 10 Corps and so on.”

As I see it, garrison units attack values should be very limited and therefore only considered a defense unit. If you add defense units the “attack momentum” in the game will be slowed down. If you “compensate” only with lesser corps for instance, that in fact is a potential attack unit, you just worsen this effect.

I think instead you have to increase the overall attack values corresponding to little bit lesser then the added defense values. At the same time the number of corps should be lowered to reflect a balance in manpower.

I think in the German case that you could add six garrison units and remove two corps, thus a 3:1 ratio. After I’ve seen the statistics I’ll try to advice how to balance the overall attack/defense capability.

If it turns out to be too complicated we should consider the garrison more like a division with an attack value reflecting only its smaller size. In that case you can have a 3:1 or 2:1 ratio with just a small or no other overall attack value compensations.

This solution has the benefit of giving us a more versatile unit. It could play the role of a volkssturm/home defense/militia unit and so on. If added readiness and strength, it could potentially play the role of historically famous and/or significant divisions like Azul. I think we should choose this road.

Please remember that this is just my spontaneous view with no support in either statistics or simulated game play.

[arado234]

I realise what you are saying Xwormwood but the fact that there were all these threats and none were carried out makes the use of poison gas that muchmore remote.There is no doubt that an Atomic bomb would be used by the side who built it.

You say Hitler didnt care about civilians and Rick Atkinsons book said Hitler may use poison gas if the war goes decisively against Germany.It did and Hitler didnt use any gas.If Hitler had an Atomic bomb there is no doubt he would have used it.Remember you can always wear a gas mask.There is NO defence against an Atomic bomb.

The Atomic Bomb should be available as an option.

[Paul 'Papa' Hausser]

Hubert, please see my answer two reply’s above.

[bowenw]

To a certain degree the need for garrisons depends on the scale of a scenario, and the length of time covered by a turn in the game. So, for instance where a turn equals just a day or a few days, I would agree that a garrison unit could buy time and might be a worthwhile feature.

However, in the Global game a turn equals a fortnight, and it is very unlikely that a small unit would be able to hold off a Corps or Army for that amount of time. Bastogne is of course an exception to the rule, but even here the defending force was both better quality and larger than the garrison equivalent I think is being suggested here.

From having played the Global scenarios quite extensively, the situation is that both sides need to prioritise and plan ahead, and providing they plan well they generally have enough for the most important areas. One tip is that leaving London empty is never a good idea, but then that has always been the case since the days of SC1!

Bill I think something got lost here in translation, probably me, what your saying makes perfect sense to me but I did not want garrison troops to defend against corps and armies I wanted them to thwart partisons builds, so many times in China a partison unit cropped up in a city I already conquered and it took three armies with sometimes huge losses to get them out, and those units were urgently needed elsewhere, some times I could not get them out with units within striking range until I used airpower from another front, some partisons are way to strong, they cant all be like Tito's partisons. I know you will be able to indentify better where they will crop up in the new game, but it really leaves me no choice but remove partisons from the game.

Bo

[Hubert Cater]

Paul,

Great to hear back from you and please feel free to use the statistics from either Patton Drives East or Weapons and Warfare since this is all academic right now so in reality as long as what we discuss is within the same relative context it should be applicable.

I think a 3:1 or even 2:1 ratio could make sense, I'd still have some concern about having too many units on the map, but that aside I'd have to see the proposed stats in order to understand the applicability more, i.e. to have a better idea the proposed attack and defense values for the Garrision would paint a better picture so we can see how it will relate to the other existing units on the map. For example, Corps already have quite low Soft Attack and Defense values of 1/1 etc., so my inclination would have to be SA/SD of pretty much 0/0 for it to make sense strength wise. However feel free to of course suggest as you see fit!

Thanks,

Hubert

[Big Al]

You can make garrisons and A-bombs now in SC2. Just alter a couple units, I did. But its not for the default scale

[Paul 'Papa' Hausser]

Hubert,

I found the statistics on page123 in my old SC2 manual. Are those figures still valid?

Also I’ve some more questions before I’ll come with my suggestions. Will you create a garrison type of unit or a divisional? Can a unit with 0 in SA even attack? HQ and transports can’t. If that’s the case we’re talking about a garrison unit.

Please answer those questions and I think I’ve a pretty clear picture of how a garrison or division unit values should be.

Thanks,

Paul

[Desert Dave]

You can make garrisons and A-bombs now in SC2. Just alter a couple units, I did. But its not for the default scale

Well, that's pretty doggone cool.

A-bombs as "tactical weapons" there in yer own mod, eh?

Enough of these tossed around -> like pretty crackling party-confetti, and you've got... nuclear winter!

Right there inside yer icy skull!

One great thing! About it... you ain't gotta worry none about no Elitists and 'er make-believe "global warming" eh?

Curious Aside: The 2 bombs dropped on Japan were named: "Fat Man," and "Little Boy."

Hmmm... wonder why not?

"Fat Mother,"

And... "Little Girl?"

Ummm, huh! May be?

Alpha male Lizard brain wins the naming contest?

Too much testosterone? Not enuff... elected enlightenment?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hausser and Bowen and et al:

Here's what I got in my latest Mod:

Militia

Motorized Infantry (...not upgraded infantry, but a separate unit)

Mechanized

Cavalry (... Cossacks for the Reds, and Poland, Romania and Hungary also have them)

Mobile Artillery (... IE, M7 for USA and Wespe for GErmany)

Mobile A/T (... SU 85 for the Reds, and Jagdpanther for GErmany)

All of the above are SEPARATE and uniquely rated units, btw, and not just "named" ones

And so, on we go:

I got the rocketry, IE -> nebelwerfer for GErmany, and katyusha for the Reds

Separate 88's for the GErmans, used as A/T

That there "Kanone 5" built by Krupp in '34, IE - "Schlanke Bertha" or the Rail Gun arty as a separate and unique unit.

I have Combat Engineers

Quite naturally, I gots the "Vengeance Weapons," IE -> V-1 & V-2... though, of course, only the GErman player gets 'em since nobody else EVEN CAME CLOSE to developing these, so I don't giv them nations any "what-if" on that 'un

I have separate categories for the Fighters, as for instance, GErmany gets them piddling HE 111's to begin with, and then moves up to ol' Emil (ME 109s) and finally gets the FW190, but each only arrives as per "semi-historical" imperative. IOW, you don't got no FW190's in time for the ensquashment of Poland.

I have separately rated NAVAL units, so that you got yer ver' low-rated Queen Elizabeth, but yer monstrous rating for the "behemoth of the high Seas," ie Der Bismark. This is true for EACH & EVERY single surface vessel and ASW and Sub/U-boot on the board.

Well, I could go on & on and mention some more, but you guys get the drift, eh?

It's like any other ol' thang in this here dwindling-to-cinder Universe... limited merely by one's studious... IMAGINATION.

[Hubert Cater]

Hubert,

I found the statistics on page123 in my old SC2 manual. Are those figures still valid?

Also I’ve some more questions before I’ll come with my suggestions. Will you create a garrison type of unit or a divisional? Can a unit with 0 in SA even attack? HQ and transports can’t. If that’s the case we’re talking about a garrison unit.

Please answer those questions and I think I’ve a pretty clear picture of how a garrison or division unit values should be.

Thanks,

Paul

Hey Paul,

I'd say to look at the stats for the upcoming Global Conflict release as that would probably make the most sense. You can find them here if you jump to page 158:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_flippingbook&book_id=15&Itemid=388

What would hypothetically be created is really the question here. I think this depends on the stats, functionality and overall purpose so I really can't say if it will be a division or garrison, I think this is more in your court as you are looking to add a new unit, correct?

But to confirm, if you wanted attack and defense values of 0 this is not a problem as the fact that an HQ and Transport cannot attack is not due to their low stats, rather I have just coded them this way, i.e. their stats could hypothetically be of any value and it still wouldn't change their inability to attack.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

Well, that's pretty doggone cool.

A-bombs as "tactical weapons" there in yer own mod, eh?

Enough of these tossed around -> like pretty crackling party-confetti, and you've got... nuclear winter!

Hey Dave,

I think you've made your point here and let's try and remember that not everyone will necessarily agree. In the end this is still a game for many players who might want this type of option and in fairness, we did include the simulation of the A-Bomb in the Pacific Theater release so it is not entirely without foundation.

Hubert