Valadictum

Has anyone had a look at WinWar II. Its not perfect by any means but it has some good ideas on how to run a naval conflict. Have a look at: http://www.silicmdr.com/winwar.htm Warning though, some bits arn't so good. I thought it was fun, but nowhere near overall as good as SC, but it is global.

If hex based strategy is so predictable for those in the know, are there realistic alternatives? Hearts of Iron didn't seem to use hexes, though I've gone off that game for other reasons.

Both

1)Recruitable HQ's with variable or random stats 2)HQ's phased into game at more appropriate points so that Rommel and Montgommerie (sic) arn't immediately available. 3)Global game 4)New terrain types (E.G French Boccage). 5)Axis supply convoys that allied subs can interdict (Africa - Italy)(Sweden - Germany). 6)Stacking on HQ's only 7)Designate which units come under an HQ 8)Maintenance cost per unit in addition to purchase cost 9)Delayed entry into service of purchase units to reflect training. 10)Instaed of the one "Army Corps" have a range of more unique corps types (Infantry, Artillery, AA - for garrison, tank etc) 11) Decrease sub impact on fleets (these are fleets not single ships or small flotillas)

If he's been following these threads and the SC map there are going to be indestructible containerships wandering around the Atlantic looking for America, full of Republican Guard. The ship Captains probably won't know where American is and they'll land in the Azores by mistake

I wonder if he's busy playing SC to get some ideas on what to do if it comes down to fighting?

Another way to resolve the problem of SC becoming like WWI would be to use the experience bars on the units more. Such as to gain extra attack and extra defence thus simulating what stacking would do without actually having to stack units. 0 & 1 experience bar - one attack or one defence. 2 experience bars - an extra attack as though at half strength and in defence always have +1 to entrenchment and the choice of retreating one hex in good order. 3 experience bars - in attack turn the extra half attack into a full air attack to represent direct tactical air support for the attacking army. In defence have +1 entrenchment and an extra counter attack at half strength to simulate well hidden artillery positions. 4 experience bars - in attack on top of previous a unit could be able to move one hex after attacking. In defence you could have extra air defence in addition to previous. Of course however experienced a unit is it should only benefit from the above while supported by an HQ unit. I reckon this might be enough to lever open the walls of corps that SC turns into in mid-late game and it would require less changes than adding stacking (which some like and some don't). Speaking about marriage - I've never figured it out! :eek:

I'll be the sour puss then! If you beef up the attacking capabilities of HQ's by whatever means, you risk over-balancing the game so that attack will always win. Wars over by mid 1940. If HQ attack is beefed up then so should HQ defensive bonus. That way the attacking HQ will be put to best use once an enemy weak point (with no defending HQ) is found - someone's already mentioned the Ardenne, a point with no defending HQ available both in 1940 and 1944 because the defenders thought it impossible to attack through here. They got bit twice in the same place If we get Admiral HQ's then perhaps we ought to have Air Marshalls as well? (especially considering the number of airfleets people use :cool: Stacking on HQ's only is a nice idea, I think it came up once before.

Nice ideas but how would further research effect things, especially in range? If the current airfleets are very tactical in nature then generally I'd like to see their interception/escort abilities reduced and a new unit purely for escorting bombers and interception added.

Early days of all welded hulls were a bit hit and miss for the British. They tried it on one of the classes of destroyers and found the seams were coming apart too easily. It was down to inexperience of the welders. They went back to rivets for wartime construction until the very end. One of the reasons why American destroyers seemed to be more robust than British ones and could be built quicker too. Interesteing observation I've found on the internet was if you pit the Yamato vs an Iowa class, the Iowa would probably come out on top. This was because the 18` guns on the Japanese ships were of a fairly old construction technique (or something like that anyway) while the Iowa's had more modern guns. The result was that the broadsides of both types were of about the same weight in shells and the Iowa's could fire faster and had longer barrel life. The American ships also had radar and would have been more accurate.

IIRC - In the Royal Navy BC's were intended to scout for the BB's, patrol commerce routes and hunt down enemy merchant cruisers raiding trade routes. This meant they needed to be fast and powerfully armed, at the cost of armour. In WW1 the Battle of Falklands was a classic BC action and exactly what BC's were intended for. The problem with such large well armed ships was the temptation to use them to supplement BB's. The result was Jutland and the losses sustained in that action. Why did BC's need to be so big? in the period that BC's as conceived of in WW1 were being built, they had no high pressure boilers. Thus to get more speed out of a ship when working at the limits of available boilers meant having more boilers (+engines?). The more boilers stuffed into a hull, meant a bigger hull Thus Hood, at 42,000 tons was a BC even in WW2 and even after the attempts to improve her. She was powerfully armed and fast but weakly armoured. Rodney and Nelson were, thanks to the Washington Treaty, an apalling example of muddled design, but also highly innovative. Yet they also came with "pre high pressure" boiler technology, thus they were slow. It was only in the 1930's that high pressure boiler tech arrived, along with other modern construction like the all welded hulls in America. This allowed the concept of fast battleships to be built, the combination of speed, armour and the big guns. This rendered all ships with older type boilers as obsolete, though some very interesting re-constructions were attempted, notably in Britain and Japan, before WW2.

Just whenever I hear about the British Army its because something doesn't work: Kosovo - had to buy local mobile phones because the radios didn't work. Desert - Tanks grind to a halt in the sand (they should have learned that lesson from WWII!) Rifles - that can't be used by anyone left handed and jam just by looking at them. Helicopters - bought lots of Apaches but arn't going to be able to fly them because they forgot the pilot training programme or something and can't fire missiles because the backfire (or something) blows the tails off. Is this just the British Army or does every nation have stories to tell from the vaults of the penny pinchers?

Just so my last post relates to topic - I'll bet the HQ was pleased!

A friend of mine just got called up because of the Iraqi thing. While he'll spend most of his time driving green goddesses I suppose he could end up "out there". I laughed when I read yesterdays newspaper - apparently the Brits in the dersert were waiting for desert camoflage kit, but got boxes of chef's whites instead!

"Valadictum Why are you opposed to the random leadership? As was pointed out, you didn't know the ability of your Generals until they actually performed. I doubt seriously if the first Russian HQ someone buys is one of the "4" rating leaders." Largely because most nations don't pick their generals by random lot, too risky. Generals that get appointed during a conflict are promoted from lower commands, which was why I favour having a smaller starting stock, but the ability to create generals whose attributes etc are very much based on how well the army they came from performed. Possibly a bit fiddly for an SC type game though. Good topic