carverrt

I read your comments with excitement, as I myself have pondered how to make the naval war more fluid. I think this subject needs a lot more discussion. If we can break the code, a new dimension of SC2 WaW might start to grow. So, I’ll add my take on this. Historically speaking, the decisions naval-air commanders had to make were centered on combat air patrol (CAP), naval attack and ground support. I know strategic attack might be within the game system, but it would not be supported by the operational situations in WW2. I counter the supporting idea of the Doolittle raid with the fact that that one attack was an anomaly. That bombing of Tokyo did NO damage, the real effect was physiological. The one strategic aspect of the attack was that the Japanese had to move more air defenses to the home islands. Maybe this could be handled with a script. Midway is the classical example of the consequences Admirals pay for incorrect decisions regarding arming their aircraft. As we all know, the Japanese were caught changing their ground bombs to anti-shipping armament by US air. I favor a different set of modes for carries: CAP, Naval, Ground, Auto. I like the discussion of amphibious attacks on occupied landing. Yes, we need to figure out how to make opposed landings work. We just won’t have a good Pacific scenario without it. Special Forces and Marines should be able to attack at full strength, but regular Army unit were used also – to good effect. I think an increase in the amphibious technology level should correspond with unit attack strength on an occupied beach. BTW… Marine defense is always stronger than Special Forces. Marines, especially US Marines, made it a point to come ashore with lots of hardware, supplies and pure staying power. The US Marines were the first to really get this right. The Brits learned this as they raided Nazi occupied Europe and it paid off on D-Day (the Brit units came very well supported by armor and other heavy weapons). Any way. These are my first thoughts to be put on this message board. There is room for improvements. A focus on making Naval warfare more realistic with additional depth and flexibility will be a great addition to WaW.

Some observations. It looks like the England is upgarded, this should be taking advantage of – where did that extra UK corps come from? Canadian armor and is defiantly bolstering the defence of France.

A couple of years ago I wrote in this forum an opinion that was understood by some and derided by some. To be fair I was critical. My point was that we are given a fantastic tool that is centered on strategic combat in the mid-20th century, why try to create mods that move away from that time period. So I am back with the publication of W&W to encourage those who are thinking of mods to create scenarios that really do this game justice. There is so much to choose from. How about a Western Europe scenario; June 6 to the end of the war? How about the countless battles of Russia? How about an Italian campaign? I read a moder was working on a Create scenario. I was so surprised and delighted to see the Spanish Civil war game, how about a Russian-Finish game. Anzio, El Aleman, France ’40 (saw a great one done before), Balkans ’41. Even hypotheticals like Sea Lowe and D-Day ’43 would be great to see. This game engine is designed for WWII - the equipment, the technologies and the logistics all replicate a specific time period. Let’s do the game justice.

This scenario has so much potential. I think a lot more will be done with it. I played it once (so many other scenarios to play) and found the German AI to be very weak. As the Russians, by the end of the first winter I was back at the Polish boarder. I set traps and massacred German armor and then rolled forward with my tanks to push the German infantry west. The artillery, anti-tank and flack units were all perfect for this level of play. Good job.

I am sure this question has been asked before; I may just need to be directed to where the answer is posted. I have several custom scenarios created under the 1,04 version. How do I convert these to 1.05?

Honch, You’ve made some interesting points. Gamers mod for their own interest… That is totally incorrect. Modders mod because they are seeking peer-approval. The guys in the fox-hole fight because of élan or esprit d corps. It’s for the team. And this team is based on SC2. Do we expect to dishonor the game because we are interested in another period of history – I do not think that will happen. The amount of work it takes to modify to another period of time is not worth the effort. The quality will not be there and the capabilities of SC2 will not be effectively explored.

ColumbusOHGamer, Good write up. I am pushy or am I being critical? I believe the later. The discussion is about straying from an implied intent. When you take a game engine that is designed around WWII and use it for LOTR you are wasting your time. The aspects that are central to 1940’s combat vary markedly from a J.J. Tolkien novel. Heck, the missions are not even similar. The intent of the game is to provide a WWII era platform for further scenario development, not wholesale game redevelopment. Let me take one aspect between the two eras and illustrate why this is the wrong game engine for Medieval type warfare: Technology development. In WWII countries went from upgrade to upgrade within a short amount of time. Think German tank main guns; from the HMG Pzkwg I to the Pzkwg V’s 88 in under five years. In the medieval world how long between the bow, to the crossbow, and to the longbow – hundreds of years. So, a SC2 designer (and this is not a challenge) can not expect to fully exploit the SC2 technology module in a LOTR scenario. You are taking a runner and making him a linebacker. The constructiveness of this discussion is that it highlights the fallacy in the direction of the majority of SC2 scenario design. Constructive does not mean always communicate in “warm and fuzzy” tones. In fact, you can muddy the waters and dilute a point if you do that.

Thank you for commenting on my post. I appreciate the consideration and thought it takes to form your comments. In addition, it is apparent that you have put in considerable time and proven your skills developing SC2 scenarios. There is a problem. I am pointing it out. I may be a jerk, but so was my Drill Instructor. I do not want to win a popularity contest, only correct a trend. Allow me to draw an analogy. You have an athlete that is a great cross-country runner and you tell him to go and try out for the football team. Take advantage of what you have, don’t waste your time with side trips. There is so much that can be created using this marvelous game engine. We have a tool that will allow us to create European theater, WWII era type scenarios from the Army Group level down to the Regimental level with a look & feel from that period in history. I read on this thread that there are two new scenarios in development. These new projects deserve a quick look because they are perfect examples of what the SC2 Editor can be used for. The Russian Civil War. The bad: That period of time has less to do with the full mechanics of the game than latter conflicts. The Russian Civil war will be very light on air & armor. An inherent property of SC2 is that it is made for Blitzkrieg warfare. The good: The diplomacy capability along with the event & AI scripting may provide gamers with some of the political look & feel from that war. The Creete Operation is a perfect use of SC2’s capabilities. It is a WWII battle that illustrated the limits of airborne warfare. You can even include the smaller sea skirmishes fought around the island. And, you can build other hypothetical scenarios off the original. I am looking forward to playing both. Are there any more WWII ear scenarios in the works?

I do not know why you guys are taking so much of your time to modify things that really do not return an equal or larger benefit. Most of the Campaign mods on CMODS are just regurgitated versions of the originals. There really is very little original material here. The scenarios that come close to being interesting and imaginative are the new World Map of 1937, the 1940 invasion of the low countries and the Russia Front (btw upgrade this to the latest version). The SC2 Editor can do a lot, but the majority of you authors are not taking advantage of the editor’s strengths. For the most part you are designing scenarios that the game engine has a hard time coping with or is of a trivial nature. For example, take the mod that adds all of sub-Sierra Africa and India. Very little action is going to occur there. Would it not have been a better idea to create a mini game of the war in the horn of Africa, or even a super-mini game of the battle for the River Plate or the Japanese raids into the Indian ocean. Heck, even a hypothetical Japanese & German invasion of the Persian Gulf would be more creative and better use of SC2’s technical resources. I believe those of you that fall into the category above should stop tiring to redesign SC2 and start to create intellectually stimulating and historical accurate (or plausible) scenarios in the time period it was designed for (read Civil War and Ancient times – go figure). SC2 is a game that gives us a change to explore hypothetical’s like an Allied/Soviet war in 1945 and the capability to author every single major campaign in the European Theater of operations. Who is going to create a mini game for the Balkans campaign, or operation Sea Lion, or operation Cobra, or Anzio, or Smolensk, or the Winter War or etc… ? So, how about it gamers, will you criticize my note or get to work and produce something that will demonstrate the real versatility of this War Game?

Amphibious operations take planning, lots of planning. And their value is not just the assault, but in a faints also (think Kuwait 1991) – no propaganda about it. To really understand this look at the history of amphibious assaults from Gallipoli to the Falklands. All the troops got ashore, but how well were they ready to fight? Did they have all their gear? Could they communicate with supporting arms? There is a lot that goes into this. Technology not always represents the newest gizmo, it represents doctrine, training, philosophy and a command commitment to amphibious operations. If you don’t put something into it you don’t get anything out of it. It’s expensive; Special equipment/armor to protect troops going ashore, high-tech communication gear to call in naval gun fire or air missions. And think about the vertical assault directly on the beach or port. That is part of an amphibious operation also. It can cut off enemy reinforcements or seize a port. What ever it takes. The history of amphibious operations has taken us from whaleboats to over-the-horizon assaults. From making sure your logistics officer has the right ski binding to ensuring the landing force and the air support have the same crypto fills. You need to build a capability, to improve the chances of successes. Amphibious landing have turned the tide and had major impact in every war since 1914. It is not something to be treated lightly. If a WWII game is to be a historical representation of that conflict, then amphibious assault capability needs to be well thought out and accurately integrated into the game.

JerseyJohn, Historically, how many men did the Axis have in areas of Western Russia to control the partisan activity? Robert

I am not sure about this idea. In this game partisans help recreate the historical operational threat of direct attacks and the strategic problem of pulling combat forces away from the front. Partisans seem to work as-is. Robert

Weedd; Do not forget technology build/research for amphibious capability.

The issue is capability. What capability should be allowed in this game? You need to have an amphibious capability, but how much impact should it have? I believe the formula should mirror the real world. With more training, doctrine and technology you have more capability and thus more impact on an enemy. If you start with low capabilities and allow countries to research for increased capabilities you will have solved the first half of the problem. The next half of the problem is a little under-defined right now. For every level of increased capability an enemy will match or try to keep up. So, the next issue is; what is the counter-capability to increased amphibious capability? Better air attack, better search, better fortifications, what else? Robert

Congratulations on the game! It's great. My suggestion: Does the game veer away from historical ship shortages, technical limitations and complexities of amphibious assaults? My observation is that it may. I am a generalist when it comes to WWII history, but I understand that the allies were always short amphibious shipping and the German would have been hard pressed to put a sizable force in good order on British shores in 1940/1941. I have read that the amphibious invasion is the most difficult military maneuver to execute. In the game any country with any technical level can apply MPPs and get as many amphibious transports as necessary. That would be ok if there were limits. I read an earlier posting on this board that amphibious attacks were too easy and too much in favor of the attacker. Maybe the playing field could be evened out and some historical accuracy inserted if there was technical development required for amphibious warfare. Robert