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

My preference would be for HQ's to be more vulnerable than they are now, not less. Also I'd suggest steering away from random attributes. What I wouldn't mind seeing is a closer link between an HQ's attributes and the experience gained by units under it's command. This would translate into HQ's than can both gain and lose attributes as the game progesses. If HQ's were also more vulnerable then in addition to a starting "crop" of HQ's each side would need to be able to create new ones. This could perhaps be done by taking an army with experience and removing its experience when creating the HQ (or most of it anyway). The more experience the original army has, the better the HQ it can create. I know this is different from what others have expressed, b ut thought I'd add my thoughts.

Further to aggressively stacking units under an HQ and the limitations that would need to be in place perhaps something along the lines of the following? HQ's level 2-6 should be able to stack (including itself as one of the units) only tank groups and army corps up to its own level in number of units. E.G. an HQ level 4 would be able to stack itself and three other units, but not a full army or air units. At level 7 and above HQ's would be able to stack a full army - representing 2 units of the available total - and a max of one air group. HQ's when stacked can't support any unit that isn't stacked with them. HQ stacked forces can advance and attack (like other units), make a static attack (like other units) or make a static attack with contained units moving into unoccuppied space if a breakthrough takes place (new element but would involve de-stacking the units). Fortifications would have to be made far tougher for units not stacked under an HQ otherwise they'd be too easy to crack. Stacked units should only be allowed to stack for up to 2 turns before supply and readiness collapse unless they are in a city or on fortifications - in which case stacking can last longer. Perhaps this would end the double lines of unmovable corps on the Russian front with gamey use of massed air groups!

I've been thinking about how HQ's could be developed in SC2 without taking them too far from what they are at the moment. I would suggest that along a static front/in defense, where they need to benefit as many units as possible, they should be used largly as now, but should take on a different role when you want to launch heavy attacks. Make HQ's the only unit in the game that can stack units under them on one hex. This will allow them to act in a more aggressive role. To prevent this fro being abused with gamey strategies HQ's should have limits on how many units they can stack, of what type and for how long they can be stacked before readiness and supply collapse (representing too many units in a confined area to be suppliued properly). It would also mean HQ's being exposed to a share of the front line damage that units receive when making such an attack. Perhaps Units stacked under an HQ would be able to move after an attack (though not the HQ itself) if the attack was launched from a hex right next to the enemy, that way exploitation could occur without exposing tank groups to immediate supply problems because they gone beyond the range of the HQ. More to come on this.

Returning to the slide bars and having one for each branch of the military plus one for domestic economy - the last one would have to mean something or everyone would just switch the thing off on the first turn? Having been playing HOI over Christmas and the New Year this may get a bit too close to micro management, especially if we want SC2 to go global. I've just got to late 1938 (I fall asleep if i spend more than half an hour playing it) and I've just lost 15 divisions because I forgot where I put them (oops!)and they died in the desert (ouch!) :mad:

Perhaps having damaged units within range of a regional stockpile might be necessary to reinforce them to full strength, or to increase units to the next level from results of research. This might make players rotate units in the front line more efficiently. If regional stockpiles are constructable units then some elements of the HQ unit should perhaps be reduced or compensated for in another way? Too much cross over?

I was wondering if it might also allow a bit of creativity in how players set up their armies to suit their own style and then see how it works against all comers by PEBM etc. How would a German tank corp/army from player X do against Russians from player Y who uses massed artillery based corp rather than player Z who uses stock infantry based corps. Just thinking of multiplayer I suppose though it wouldn'y be worth it if it became too paper/scissors/rock etc. That would be where research and commanders would have to play a role as now.

The logistical idea of convoys would probably fit in the Far East as well as in the Atlantic. One of the major US war efforts against Japan was by submarine, practically wiping out the Japanese merchant fleet. Logical convoy routes to make the Japanese defend would be: China to Japan (rice and slaves and the resources of Manchuria) Indonesia to Japan (representing oil) Singapore to Japan (representing rubber, but only if they capture the place) Japan also needed to supply troops on distant outposts, an area they failed badly in. Perhaps a form of "outbound" convoy could be set up to take supplies to outposts in lieu of a port? but would be more vulnerable to attack.

I had an idea in the past but probably didn't express it very well. Having played Hearts of Iron a bit (all yesterday in fact and war has only just been declared - and I nodded off) I can see why people don't want that level of micro management. So I'll try and simplify things so it can remain strategic. - Recruit forces at divisional level in a force pool. - From Pool deploy in corps and army sized units - Available divisions could reflect volunteer and "slave" units the Germans can recruit (or British/French Imperial units) - Available divisions can also reflect different types of division (artillery, Anti Air etc) that would reflect in bonus'+ negatives at Corps level. - When a damaged Corps/army reinforces its divisions are returned to the pool for a period of time. - Pools can be held in any controlled city that has full strength. Probably to complex for some people, but I suppose my ideal game is something at a level between SC and Hearts of Iron, without the useless over-complexity of micro managing everything in site, just the important bits.

If the German and Russians are allowed 10+HQ on land and the Brits on about 5, then something should be there to represent the RN Admirals who did so much to win the war at Sea, ones like Ramsay who masterminded the rescue of the BEF, or Cunningham who splatted the Italian Navy. How can men such as these not be represented when American generals like Clarke are? He was only an army commander and had nothing to do with grand strategy. As for difficult?

Have Air HQ's, Ground HQ's (like now) and Sea HQ's. Ground HQ's would be able to control no more than one air unit and no sea units, air HQ's would be all air and sea HQ's all sea.