ev

This sounds fair, and not that far off from my idea. Say we make each Flak point to cost around 20 MPPs. And say we make each Flak point roughly equal to 1/10th of an AD. Then, Edwin's idea is much like mine... Edwin's proposal has a the advantage of simplicity. ...and simplicity is important, for the AI, and, for ease of playing. My proposal has the advantage of being able to buy incrementally in the event you do not have 200 MPPs available. Keep in mind you may have 200 MPPs available, but you may need to defend several cities. And remember the enemy will attack the undefended cities that are within range first.

During WWII, non of the combatants developed full fledge paratroop armies. US, GB, Ge, Russia, and even Italy, and even the free poles had paratroop regiments, brigades, or divisions. But they were never organized into paratroop armies as would be represented in SC2. However... they could have. And I guess the interesting question to present to the players of SC2 is: "what if?" What if Germany had used a full paratroop army to support the attack on the Low Countries? What if Russia had used a full paratroop army to envelop Army Group Center. Or Germany had used a paratroop army behind Kursk to make a larger, deeper pocket avoiding the Russian main defense line? I am 100% for paratroops in SC2.

In SC1 all cities had antiair batteries, and, all antiair batteries in all citites were improved when higher tech levels were reached. I suggest SC2 deals with flak as some sort of upgrade that the player has to buy for a city or port. If the player does not invest on flak upgrade for a city, then the city or port would not be protected by flak. Cities would have a default flak value of 0. But a player could buy up to ten flak points for a city. Advances in Flak tech would allow a player to buy additional flak points - say up to 15 at tech level 5. Flak points would not add to the air defense of a city, but would attack air units bombing the city. Flak units attack the air unit before the bombardment, hence reducing the strength of the air attack. A city with no flak unit will be hammered by the full strength of the air attack. But a well defended unit will fair much better. Flak points are not units, hence they have no counters and no action points. However, I would allow a player to "operate" flak points from one city to another - at a cost. According to this scheme, a player would only buy flak for those cities that are within range of enemy bombers. As the enemy develops longer range tech, then you have to buy flak for cities further away from the enemy. Increases in bomber range would have the added advantage of forcing the opponent to buy more flak for more cities. Flak points could also attack air units attacking a land or air unit based on the city hex. Note that flak points are not units, but upgrades to the city hex. They have no counters on the board and do not affect stacking limits. An argument could also be made that flak unit could contribute the anti tank strength of a land unit defending a city.

...Luxembourg did exist. Whatever army it had did not make any difference in the development of the war. However, its neutrality prior to the invasion kept the French Army (and the Belgian Army) from taking possitions within it. On the other hand, I think (not sure) that the Maginot line extended "behind" Luxembourg, so it did not make much sense for the French or the Belgians to place any troops there.

No one ever speaks about advance afer combat. Most of the time advance after combat would not be interesting in SC. But, there are a few cases where advance after combat would be important: 1. where a unit is surrounded and trying to reunite with the main body. 2. where the attacker completely anhiliated the defender of a city, but there is no other unit to ocupy. 3. where a paratrooper or amph "landed" on an enemy occupied hex. 4. when a unit is trying to break out of the beachhead where it landed the previous turn. Also, I have not heard about the possibility of multiple attacks by highly mechanized units. Any ideas or comments on any of these.

...elsewhere in this site I suggested there should be a technology area that improved the number of units that could be attached to an HQ. As per the suggestion of one of the fellow persons in this forum, I would call this tech area C3: Command, Control and Communications. As a country reached higher tech levels in C3, upgraded HQ's could control more units. Hence addressing Roosvelt45's concern. An increase in C3 tech would allow allow an HQ to control more units, and would also increase the contribution of the the HQ to a units combat performance. I am not sure I would increase the command range of an HQ as a result of higher C3 tech levels. A very large command range can create a real mess of the playing field. Elsewhere I suggested that at C3 level 0, HQ's would only command 3 units, but, at C3 level 5 they should command 8 units. Of course, a player would most likely upgrade the better HQ's, while lower rated HQ's may be left at their initial C3 levels... so these HQ's become your low-budget HQ's. See Roosevelt 45's suggestions. On a separte note, improved C3 levels should increase the readiness level of all units, whether or not they are attached to an HQ. HQ's with higher C3 levels should have a higher contribution to the combat readiness (or the like) of the troops under the command of that HQ. But this contribution should be in additon to whatever benefit the unit derives for its own C3 level.

Yes Shaka ... Brought up the radio issue because it sounds more like tech. But, C3 is really what I meant

I agree that the tank units represent a mixture of tanks, infantry, artillery and other weapons. At the scale represented in the map, tanks probably compramised around 10% of the vehicles in a tank group. Supporting artillery, infantry, engineers, recon, communications, supplies, communication, command and control, and even medical facilities all had to be motorized in order to keep up with the tanks. Improvements in mechanization should benefit armored divisions. Some WWII examples: When WWII started, German recon units rode mortocycles. By 1944, the best equiped German panzer recon rode Pumas - multiwheeled armored cars with a small cannon on a light turret. When WWII started, supporting artillery in the British, US and German tank formations all were towed by trucks. By the end of the war, artillery units in the armored units were often towed by halftracks (which could go off road) or were self propelled - which allowed them to set up and start firing a lot quicker. During WWII all major combatants developed self propelled anti air guns to acompany tank formations. When WWII started no major combatant had specialized armored command and control vehicles... These and many other advances in support vehicles allowed tank formations to move faster, since they did not have to wait for their support vehicles. As a matter of fact, the bulk of these support vehicles were concentrated in the armored fomations. I strogly feel tank units should benefit from advances in mechanization. A tank formation that does not mechanize its support weapons (mech level 0) should not be able to move faster than a light infantry corps. On the other hand, a fully mechanized infantry or tank unit - mech level 5 - should be able to cover more distance per turn than allowed for in SC1. Germany should start the war at a higher mech level (1 or 2). Russia should be way down the road (mech level 0). The US, France, England and Italy should be somewhere in the middle: perhaps some ongoing research or even a mech tech level 1 if Germany has mech tech 2.

...more on my previous post. I would have Communications Tech affect units in several ways: Increase combat readines or some other combat multiplier of land units. Increase the combat contribution that an HQ provides to units under its command - higher combat readiness or the like. Increase the number of units that may be attached to an HQ (starting with only 3 at level 0 and increasing all the way up to 8 at level 5). Any other idea?

I wonder if there is a way in which players could improve on some of the atributes of HQ's. I mean: make them move faster, increase its supply range, increase the number of units attached to it, etc. Some ideas: Mechanization advances could allow for upgrades in the movement capability and supply range of HQs - provided the player upgraded the HQ. Improvements in a new Communication Technology could allow HQs to control more units. Say at level 0 an HQ could only control 3 units but at level 5 an HQ could control 8 units. Also, HQ's with better Communications Technology could have a higher impact on combat readiness. Elsewhere in this site, I proposed that combat units with better communication technology should have should have some readiness bonus. This would be in addition to the HQ Communications Bonus I here propose. ...oh, and by the way, I am in favor of creating a Communications Tech, in case you did not notice

Yes bloodstar, I like your proposal very much.

Jersey John, I see your point. I guess each tech should be treated differently. Say you invent jet engines: either you replace your planes or you don't. And certainly that is very very expensive. But say you develop a better radar or sonar, you don't need to scrap your battleships. You only install a new radar on the existing battleships (at a cost, but a propotionately small cost). Or say you, develop a better antitank weapon. You need to replace your old anti tanks, but, that will not affect the machine guns and the other weapons carried by infantry units. I agree that upgrading to new weapons should cost, and, should not be automatic. In fact, I would require naval units to return to port in order to be retrofitted with new tech. I would also require all units to be at very high supply levels before allowing them to retrofit. Plus, as mentioned earlier, I would require varying MPP expenditures depending on the nature of the technology. An army unit represents an assortment of many weapons systems, each affected by different research areas (anti tank, mechanization, soft weapons, and perhaps other new techs I still don't know about.) For an army unit I would like to see a smaller cost to upgrade each of the different weapons systems in an army unit as new tech becomes available in each different area. I don't think this contradicts your general thought with which I very much agree. In fact, after reading your last comment I must agree that for air units, the MPP cost of implementing new tech should be higher than I previously thought.

I agree, and furthermore... German procedures called for special units to be pulled out of the front line say once a year to get special training such as new tactics on how to deal with new enemy weapons, etc. Under these guidelines, tank units were considered special units and were supposed (when possible) to be removed from the fontline not only for refitting but for new training I believe once a year. Perhapps we the game could provide for such special training. Once a year, units that are not in enemy ZOC could receive some special trainning and refitting at a preset MPP cost. This training and refitting would increase some combat attribute that wears out progressively through the course of say a year.

There should be a difference between naval transport and amphibious assault transport. Amph Assault should be more expensive. Furthermore, the total number of amph assault transports should be limited, so that the attacker cannot land simultaneously 20 armies. The limit could be a function of either of the following: the total number of ports controlled by the invading power, the production of those ports, the total number of naval units owned by the invading power, or the total production capability of the invading coutnry. I would allow naval transport to land in any friendly hex, even if it is not a port. But only units transported by amph assault should be able to land in an enemy controlled hex. In addition, I would create an amph tech research area. Amph tech would be critical when landing on an occupied enemy hex. In fact, I would not allow landing on an occupied enemy hex unless the attacking country had reached level 1 on amph landings tech. At tech level 0, amph landings should be allowed only on enemy controlled hexes - not on enemy occupied hexes. (Note that amph assult points would not be necesary when landing in a friendly non-port hex).

Air fleets as represented in SC are huge. You only need a few planes to effectively recon a huge area. And, probably army commanders could request air recon during WWII even if they did not have a whole air fleet under their command. In fact, artillery spoters in the US and German armies sometimes flew in staff planes to observe enemy positons. And, I think some WWII battleships had small amphibian planes that could do limited recon. - I am pretty sure the Japs did. Of course, the problem is that recon planes would not fair very well in the presence of enemy air combat units. One way to incorporate air recon into SC would be to allow Land and Naval Units a somewhat longer viewing range, that would extend only into spaces that are outside of enemy air unit range. In other words, the presence of enemy air units would hinder air recon performed by the small service plances attached to the land and naval units. The air recon range of Land and Naval units could be subject to tech research increase. Though, I doubt players would invest heavily in this kind of research.

I feel Guderian should be included in the list of German commanders. During operation Barbarosa (1941 advance on Russia) Guderian commanded a Panzer Group made of several Panzer Corps. OK not quite an Army Group, but probably had more men under his command than Rommel ever did, and, certainly had more firepower under his command than most Army Group commanders in WWII. 1941 Panzer Group Guderian had over 1/4 of the German Armored forces in Russia. And, by and far, most of teh German armored forces were in Russia. At the time, Rommel was commanding one Panzer Corps with 2 Panzer and one Panzer Grdr division in North Africa. And Rommel was under the command of both Kesselring and an Italian Field Marshal - though most of the time manage to do things his own way.

...infantry units with higher mech levels will move faster? Keep in mind that Tank Armies were mostly composed of infantry. A full strength panzer division had 2 battalions of tanks, three battalions of infantry, one battalion of engineers, one recon batalion, and the rest was artillery, anti air, anti tank and support. The panzer granadier divisions had even fewer tanks. And a panzer corps usually was a mix of panzer and panzer grandier divisions. US and british tank corps were also mainly compossed of infantry and supporting units. Tanks always made a small percentage of the total fighting force. My point is that mechanization should also improve the AP's of Tank units. ...by the way, how will AP's work in SC2. Do you need to spend AP's to attack? Can a unit with a lot of AP's attack more than once? etc.

I agree with the problem, but I think the medicine is too strong. A tank army had tanks, but it was not all tanks. Maybe as little as 10% of the vehicles in a tank corps were actually tanks. Likewise, when we look at infantry weapons, the fact that say the Axis developed a bazooka, does not mean they are going to throw away 50% of the equipment of the whole infantry army. Say we look at navy units, and, say we have improved radar. There is a cost for installing the radar in a ship, but you need not build a new ship. 50% cost to incorporate new tech is too high. With the exception of air units, the cost of incorporating new tech should be closer to 5% of cost per unit. In the case of air fleets it should be higher since combat planes make such a large percentage of the airfleet equipment, but still I feel 50% sounds too high.

...and, for Finland.

Have you considered a communications tech? Improving radio communications was critical in the develpment of Blitzkrieg, on several counts: One of Guderians most improtant contributions is that he put the tank together with the radio. Guderian set rules for the use of radio communications that allowed tank units to communicate quickly and effectively without all the chatter clogging the available bandwidth. Guderian also set up ways for the tank commanders to communicate quickly with supporting infantry, artillery, engineers, and even air units. One the far opposite extreme were the Russians, which had superior tanks with no radios. When Germany invaded Russia, only the lead tank in each platoon had a radio. Tankers communicated with each other with flag signals - which was almost suicidal in the midst of battle. As a result, the best Russian Tank commander had no choice but to let things run their course after the battle started. Communication failures were common and costly through WWII. During operation market garden, british paratroopers suffered greatly because of their radios did not work...

...and, by the way on Bullwinkle note, I agree with the spirit of Bullwinkle's suggestion. Troops with more experience, troops that are better supplied, troops that are attached to a better HQ, and, specially troops with mechanized transport should have a better chance of retreating. I understand retreating in front of a superior enemy is a most difficult and riky maneuver. I am for allowing retreat, but, there should be a good risk model associated with it.

In general, mechanized units should be more likely to succesfully retreat. From my readings of WWII, infantry had a very hard time retreating when attacked by fast tank units, while mechanized units were most often able to get out of harms way. There is a publication of Rommel's Diary with great notes on his battle at El Alamein and his concern that foot infantry would not be able to retreat after a British breakthrough. Foot infantry only had a fair chance to retreat from attacking mechanized units when defending closed terrain (hedge rows, woods, hills or mountains, and the like) or when defending river crossings. Otherwise, infantry retreating from tanks usually suffered huge losses. ...by the way, I would not allow air units and naval units in port to retreat.

I very much like the idea of engineers constructing fortifications. I am not fond of limmiting the number of units. Having to many fortifications could be a problem. But there are other ways of discouraging excesive fortification build ups: First, you can make fort construction into a slow (several turn) process. An engineer unit may be required to stay in a single hex for several month before completing a fort. Second, you could require expenditure of MPPs each time an engineer unit starts to construct a fort. Third, you could make engineer units more expensive. Fourth, you could require the engineer unit to have very high supply levels before allowing fort construction. Furthermore, you could slow down construction if the engineer unit is not at the highest supply level. Fifth, you could require the engineer unit to be attached to an HQ during the construction. This would force you to sacrifice HQ units from the front in order to build fortifications. And, you could even increase the quality of the fortification, or the speed in which they are built, depending on the quality of the HQ.

Mechanization sounds like a great idea. But I don't see it as a tech research issue. By1939 all important players in Europe knew enough about cars, trucks, and tracked vehicles to "mechanize" their supply lines. They just did not have the industrial capability to do so. I would rather see mechanization as an upgrade you can perform onto an HQ. By upgrading an HQ up to mechanized that HQ would have a better supply range and perhaps move a bit faster (one more square or hex). Thus, for example, the German player may want to mechanize Rommel's HQ thus allowing the Afrika Corps to advance a little farther away from Tobruk, and, allowing the HQ to better keep up with his tanks. I would make it fairly expensive to upgrade an HQ to mechanize status. Mechanized HQ's should be the exception, not the norm.