Logan Hartke
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Logan Hartke
-
-
Research is always very expensive. So it makes sense that you have to pay more than once. If you catch a goal in one area the next goal isn’t for free imo.
This is very true. Ian Hogg once said (talking specifically about German artillery of WWII) that the last 10% of performance is 50% of the cost. That was a direct reference to the cost of research. The difference between a plane that has a maximum speed of 400 mph and costs $100,000 and a plane with a maximum speed of 440 mph might be another $100,000. Similarly, artillery had the same issue.
Compare the German 24cm K 3 gun and the US M1 240mm howitzer. They fired a similar sized round for a similar effect on the target. Both were designed for counter-battery fire, destruction of fortifications, and any other task where the accurate fire of a long-range, large-caliber gun was deemed useful. They were both very accurate, as well. The main difference was that the German gun could fire over 50% further than the American gun. This made the gun itself almost twice as heavy. The German gun had to be broken into 6 loads compared to the US 240mm howitzer's 2 loads. The American gun also achieved a higher rate of fire (2-2.5 rounds for every round the Germans could get off). Finally, it was cheaper. For every K 3 the Germans built, the Americans built more than 20 M1 240mm howitzers.
So, I think that it's just one way of showing the exponential cost of higher level research, something I'd agree with. You want to get from 200 mph to 250 mph with your monoplane fighter? Retractable landing gear will do it for you. Easy and cheap. 250 mph to 300 mph? More streamlining and 200 additional horsepower can probably achieve that. 300 mph to 350 mph? Well, that's going to take a purpose-designed high performance fighter with at least 1000 hp. You're also going to want to go with a thinner wing, too. 350 mph to 400 mph? Now you need a supercharger, and that isn't easy. You're also going to need higher octane fuel. 400 mph to 450 mph? Man, that's not easy. It's going to need a laminar-flow wing, 2000 hp minimum, high-octane fuel with a super-charged engine, etc. 500 mph? You need jet technology.
See what I mean? The cost is really exponential and I think that's reflected.
Logan Hartke
-
Thanks, Hubert. I'd love that. To be honest, though, in playing through it, the whole "East Commonwealth" and "West Commonwealth" thing didn't work too well for me. After I played through it, I fired up a couple of Storm of Steel games in PDE and found them far more enjoyable. Japan seemed totally unnatural in Blitz and the split of the countries (such as China) didn't work too well on the giant map. I also hated how, once landed on Australia, most Japanese units couldn't move AT ALL because of the terrain and low movement points. It was very easy to see how easily an Allied player could deny the entire island completely with merely the control of the few cities and (therefore) ports with only the the smallest number of units.
Thanks, also, for the great amount of work that you do for the game and series as a whole. You've always been great in responding to player feedback and incorporating it into future releases. I doubt you remember, but I used to play SC1, mod it, and be quite active on the forums back in the day. I made a few scenarios (including 1946 and Cold War), a series of graphics packs (mostly unit, but some medal), and even a sound mod.
What I think I'd like to see the most at the moment is more nationalized units types for the minor countries. D.XXIs at lvl 0 and Buffaloes at lvl 1 for Finnish fighters, for example, and Turan I, II, and III for Hungarian lvl 1, 2, & 3 tanks.
Thanks again,
Logan Hartke
-
So I've been playing the new WW2 Global Conflict for SC2: Blitz and it's great fun. Now I want to play it, but with the new WAW units. Is there a version of Global Conflict for it that includes the rest of the world and Japan?
Thanks in advance,
Logan
-
So I just started playing SC2 again after about a year without. I wanted to get some of the latest mods and scenarios, but saw that it was closing down very soon. I want to download what SC2 stuff is there before it goes away, but I can't see where any new users can register. Am I just missing it or has that been disabled? If I can't register, can someone PM me their login so that I can get everything SC2-related from there before it goes away?
Thanks in advance,
Logan
-
Discounts for forum members or original SC owners?
Logan Hartke
-
What happened, John? Did W.O.P.R. fry?
Logan Hartke
-
Hello, I'm Logan Hartke. I made the 1945 Fall Weiss scenario. I really need to write a little readme so that Narayan can upload it to his website. I'm so lazy. Maybe I'll do it this weekend. Anyway, just send me an e-mail and I'll attach the scenario to a reply e-mail.
Logan Hartke
-
I either only move through the Turkish-Soviet border with two HQs and/or, more often, I just stick to the coastline as long as the enemy doesn't have surface units gunning for my HQs. In one of my first games I got an HQ stuck and I learned my lesson, never doing that again.
Logan Hartke
[ October 05, 2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Logan Hartke ]
-
I've been looking at them and they look GREAT, but, honestly, I'm an old Panzer Leader junkie and that's part of the reason I like the look of the game so much as it is. The game looking like it does in the German version actually takes something away for me. I use the Elite Edition graphics mod with Martinov's hexes, GDS_Starfury's medals, my flags, and my icons. Besides, I put about 20 hours into my different icon sets and I'm keeping them.
Thanks but no thanks,
Logan Hartke
-
I'd just like to publically thank John for going to the effort to make this AAR and say that I am waiting with great anticipation for every post he makes on this thread (not to mention the outcome of the game itself).
Logan Hartke
[ September 28, 2003, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Logan Hartke ]
-
America deserves tech in Advanced Submarines and Heavy Tanks. America during WWII had the world's most successful, damaging, influential, and survivable submarines. It had the most daring and innovative sub commanders. Due to the flood of British WWII books, all we seem to hear about is German sub warfare, but until the Type XXI U-boats came out, American subs were basically better in every category. American subs also benefitted from a more effective radar and were, BY FAR more lethal than anything that the Germans ever sent down the slipway until the Type XXIs started being built (and they were never the majority of the U-boat force).Originally posted by JerseyJohn:Major Country Areas of Emphasis:
Anti-Tank
--- Germany, USA & USSR
Heavy Tank
--- Germany, USSR & France
Anti-Aircraft Radar
--- Germany, UK and USA
Long Range
--- UK, USA & Italy
Jet Aircraft
--- Germany, UK & USA
Heavy Bombers
--- UK & USA
Sonar
--- UK & USA
Advanced Submarines
--- Germany
Gun Laying Radar
--- Germany, UK & USA.
Rockets
--- Germany
Industrial Technology
--- Everyone needs to add chits in this field.---
Also, in Heavy Tank technology, tanks have many things that contribute to their effectiveness. Short-sighted authors love to compare gun calibers and armor thicknesses, but when it comes to the overall tank design, American Shermans had all other countries beat hands down every time. Like I said, historians love the "mine is bigger" argument of armor and caliber, but in actual warfare, these things mean, relatively, very little. 2/3s of the "great" German Panthers broke down before they saw combat in the Ardennes offensives whereas the American Sherman lead "Spearhead" in something no other tank could have done.
If equipped with Panthers or Tigers, they'd have broken down long before they'd hit the 75 mile mark. Also, it is a fallacy to think that Panthers, Tigers, and King Tigers ever made the majority of German tank forces. PzKpfw IVs and StuG IIIs formed the majority of tanks when the Tigers and Panthers were entering service and theat balance never shifted for the rest of the war. It is unfair to act like Panthers and Tigers were the mainstay; PzKpfw IVs and StuG IIIs were the mainstay and the Sherman was better that either of those vehicles, so, to be fair, the US deserves an equal or higher Heavy Tank rating than any other country in the game (including the USSR). I'm writing an essay about the Sherman's unfair reputation for school and I'll be sure to put it on the website when it is finished (sometime in December, when it is due). Here is a rough outline I already have done to prove to you that I've researched it well and am not just blowing hot air (like most authors I see anymore). You might not understand all of it since some of it is just note that I understand. Also, the words in italics are book titles. I plan to use MAJOR references there.One of the 3d Armored division's most spectacular World War II feats was a fighting advance of 101 miles in one day - the longest one-day advance in military history.
Also, I think that all American corps, tank corps, and armies should have increased effectiveness (AT and Heavy Tank ratings) due to their INCREDIBLY more advanced and more effective artillery.Thesis: The Sherman tank was a far better tank than most historians claim it was.I.Firepower
A.Rate of Fire
B.Gyroscope
C.Types of rounds
D.Barrel longevity
E.“Ma Deuce”
II.Mobility
A.Official speed vs. actual speed
B.Gas mileage
C.Powerpacks
D.Power-to-weight ratio (M26 vs. M4 in Korea)
III.Protection
A.Stock Shermans vs. actual Shermans
B.Issued appliqué armor
C.“Scrounged” armor
D.Concrete/sandbag/log/etc. Armor
IV.Operability/Practicality
A.Turret basket
B.Barrel length
C.Weight
D.Width
E.Field telephone
F.Vision
V.Producibility
A.Simplicity
B.Proven technology
C.Size
D.Different hulls (cast, welded, composite)
VI.Reliability
A.Rubber tracks
B.Quality of manufacture
C.Intelligent, proven design
D.All theatres of operations/every continent
VII.Serviceability
A.Common technology
B.Built with mechanics in mind
C.Accessibility
VIII.Retrievability
A.Weight
B.Built with retrieval vehicles in mind
C.M32-series
IX.Repairability
A.Gas vs. diesel/mixed gas
B.VVSS/HVSS units vs. interweaving roadwheels
C.Interchangeability
D.Size/weight
E.Commonality
X.Adaptability
A.Track width
B.Powerpack
C.Turret ring
D.Size
XI.Longevity
A.Reliability
B.Adaptability
C.Serviceability
D.Russia
E.Israel
F.Chile
XII.Crew Survivability
A.1:5 death rate
B. Another River, Another Town
XIII.Historical Performance
A.Lend-Lease
B.Zaloga
C. Against the Panzers
D. Patton's Third Army
http://etloh.8m.com/strategy/artil.html
Beyoond the above "standard" organizational doctrine, apparently Americans were quite capable of concentrating fire support on as large a scale as needed. I'll offer an example from the German counter-attack at Mortain in August of 1944 (from Saving the Breakout, Alwyn Fetherstone, 1993). Three American infantry companies were trapped by the Germans on top of a hill overlooking the valley that Mortain lies within (this was a bottle neck that a major part of the German attack had to pass through, if it was going to cut off Patton's breakout). The American infantry held out for something like two days against the better part of a panzer/panzer grenadier division that desperately wanted the lousy Yanks off of the hill. The only problem seems to have been that some twelve and a half battalions of Uncle Sam's artillery could be called on in the instant by the infantry, anywhere on the highly visible countryside for miles around. This not only prevented all daylight movement by the German attack, but completely thwarted any attack on the infantry itself, even at night. To imagine the effect of being a German attacking up that hill, think of being on a football field with some fifty to one hundred 20-odd pound TNT explosions going off around you EVERY second (some two hundred guns each firing every 3 to say 8 seconds). Another way to think of it is to say that, in some sense, you might expect to have a shell land within touching distance of you every 15 seconds or so. Yep, I don't think the US needs to bow to anybody when it comes to an ability to deliver impromptu concentrated fires. :-< :-< [dead Jerry's]
Logan HartkeHow this Affects WargamesYou can see from the above, that in a tactical-level wargame one would expect each nation's artillery to be governed by rather varied rules. The Germans get accurate artillery, but it's somewhat slow to come. The British get the fire very promptly. Their fire is less likely to seriously damage the intended target, but the effect of the barrage is going to be spread over a much wider area than a similar German or American fire mission. Furthermore for the most part, for the British and Germans, only specially trained Forward Observers can call in artillery fires.
The Americans of course get it all: Fast, deadly accurate (i.e., little or no drift), they get extra when they care (and even if they don't care), and they get the additional potent weapon of Time on Target. I should also mention that proximity fuses were introduced (sometime during the Bulge, I believe) so that Americans then can start getting the benefit of the far more deadly airburst fires (deadly to infantry and especially to open-topped vehicles).
-
I could easily do that, its just that I fear people confusing those units with tank units. Also, I think that people would also start to lose respect for the "boots on the ground" and, even though I admit I am a tankaholic, I think that the boots are underappreciated and I almost would feel guilty replacing that icon with an APC and/or IFV, do you know what I mean? Over the weekend, if I have some free time, I could give it a shot, but I'd need to do that with all of the countries. I was thinking for US - M113(corps)/M2 Bradley(army), for UK - FV432(corps)/Warrior(army-even though its 2yrs early), for France - AMX-VTT(corps)/AMX-10(army), for USSR - MTLB or BTR-50(corps)/BMP-1 or BMP-2(army). For France, I'd have picked the VAB instead of the AMX-VTT, but wheels look funny when all other vehicles have tracks in the game.Originally posted by John Carter, Desklord of Mars:Might be useful to use army and tank group units to model the US corps, although how to differentiate between Vth and VIIth given the fact that at that time one was M60/M113 based and the other M1/Bradley based, I don't know.
Logan Hartke
-
Thank you John, but the icons that came with the set were only partly mine. The icons that I sent Narayan (and should come out in a pack, possibly with the mod) are all mine and you should take a look at them when Narayan puts them up. As for the balance issue, I already brought up a lot of issues with Narayan and proposed a fair number of solutions, but fixing all of those things will take time.
Narayan, did you get my e-mail(s)?
Logan Hartke
-
Oh, heck, I just went on Amazon. Someone there is actually selling a copy of CC3 for $20. I'm dead serious, buy it NOW! I've not seen one at that price for a while. Ebay has like 3 or 4 for sale right now and you might be able to get one for about that price if you win a bidding war. They usually go up a lot near the end.
Logan Hartke
[ September 10, 2003, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: Logan Hartke ]
-
While it is not turn-based, you might want to try Close Combat III: The Russian Front or Close Combat V: Invasion Normandy. They are very much strategy games, yet they have none of the annoying, time-consuming micro-management that kills so many games. It is all about the strategy and knowing your equipment. It's company-sized combat that only takes 30-60 minutes at most to play a game. Even though it's real-time strategy, it doesn't have building rushes like other RTS games (you can't built any units at all), nor is it so fast-paced that it leaves turn-based game players behind. A very user-friendly game that is easy to learn yet hard to master. A lot like SC but on a much smaller scale, with better graphics, less time-consuming, and in real time. On the surface, it isn't a life-changing game, but there are a LOT of mods out there. It's a great game and I love it. Only down side? You have about as much chance of finding an affordable copy of CC3 or CC5 as you do Axis & Allies: Iron Blitz, only you can download Iron Blitz. I've not seen that you can download CC3 anywhere. A great game if you can find it, now if only you can find it (I bought two copies when it was affordable and readily available). Also, it has about the same system requirements as SC (really taxing, I know).Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:P.S. Somebody find "cool" strategy turn based games that we can play that don't take 20+ hours to properly play.
Logan Hartke
-
Actually, according to R. Lee Ermey (the most famous Marine of all), the 18th century Marine uniform's high, stiff leather collar was for protecting the Marine from any blows to the neck area (blunting slashes, etc.). Since it was largely impractical, it was discontinued after not very long, but the name stuck.Originally posted by JerseyJohn:Blinders would probably be a good issue; 18th century grenedier uniforms came with high, stiff collars so the troopers would be less inclined to look turn their heads. In those days sublety was never a big issue.
Logan Hartke
-
There's not much choice in the USMC. Don't they issue blinders with the uniform?
Logan Hartke
-
I've sent Narayan my icons, so the whole kit and caboodle should be done soon.
Logan Hartke
[ September 06, 2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Logan Hartke ]
-
I'm doing a set of icons for this mod and I have given Narayan a bit of feedback on the unfinished campaigns. There might be later versions coming out soon, but they are basically finsihed, as are my icons (at least, they will be tomorrow).
Logan Hartke
-
My medal for the "White Russians" is based on the Order of St. George.
The real one...
An enlarged JPG of my BMP file...
Logan Hartke
[ August 28, 2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Logan Hartke ]
-
My icons for the mod...
Logan Hartke
[ August 28, 2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Logan Hartke ]
-
This post would've been up about two hours sooner, but my grandfather wanted to look up information on one of our relatives that won the Victoria Cross in WWI.
I am a moderator on one forum and have moderated two others in the past. I was invited to moderate these and was not self-appointed. Two of the forums had posts that numbered into the hundreds of thousands (no, I'm not exaggerating), so these were not small forums. Rarely if ever were my actions criticised by either members or fellow moderators. When they were, I apologized for any misunderstandings on my part.
As I saw it, unless a topic was offensive, vulgar, or insulting, it was okay. There were always some that were off-topic, and I moved some of them to where they belonged, but I didn't usually mess with topics that were popular, good-natured, and positive. When a post within a topic was vulgar in some way, I often exercised my right as a moderator and edited or deleted that post instead of deleting or locking the entire thread. Punishing the whole class for one student's offenses does no good.
Sometimes, however, such as in the case of Lucky Zebra, deletion and/or locking of entire topics is understandable and well-founded. I have noticed, however, that locking a topic is the most enraging thing a moderator can do. The topic remains there, mocking the posters that contributed to it before it was locked and acting as a billboard announcing a moderator's sovereignty and making sure that everone remembers who is in charge. I understand the moderators' desires to keep this forum well-organized and on-task.
In a perfect world, all posts would be entirely on-topic, stimulating, concise, entertaining, and appropriate. Unfortunately, as much as every responsible moderator wishes it, this cannot always be so. There's nothing wrong with running a tight ship, but every good captain knows that there must be a balance between morale and discipline. Let the crew slack too much and have too much fun and the ship will never leave port which benefits no one. Crack down too hard on the crew and you'll end up like Captain Bligh. There has to be a balance.
This post is not meant in any way as a slight against the moderators or criticism. I know how difficult it can be to keep a forum clean and on-topic. It is not intended to be in any way negative nor was it written in a conceited fashion. It is simply meant to be considered.
Logan Hartke
-
Sorry, I've not been able to reply to either of your hails (e-mail and forum), but I've been ill lately. Check your e-mail for my reply.
Logan Hartke
-
This 1945 Mod and my half sound mod are still available to anyone who wants them. Also available, a 1962, 1985, WWI, and a slew of WWII graphics mods (mainly units) available. If you want them, just send an e-mail my way.
Also, if anyone would like to post any comments/reviews on any of my mods, any input would be appeciated. Either send me an e-mail or post a comment online.
Logan Hartke
BTW - JerseyJohn, what's your ETA on that AAR and how is that sound mod working out for you?
Intelligence Breakthroughs & Research Chits
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
I follow now. I misunderstood at first and was thinking that you were talking about research chits in general and not just intelligence ones. It would seem then that you would essentially need two separate systems, then, since intelligence just adds to your chances of regular research paying off. Technological advances by espionage and technological advances by research. While I can absolutely see your point, I think that it wouldn't be worth the game changes required to the system to implement it. Take, for example, the Tupolev Tu-4 saga. While that was a stroke of luck leading to B-29s landing on Soviet soil as opposed to a defection or espionage, the lesson remains the same. When they were acquired, Stalin ordered Andrei Tupolev to copy and produce the B-29. Tupolev protested since they were at that stage of development already and to build the B-29 instead would essentially make all their work be for naught. Stalin wanted to go with something he knew worked, however (lower risk) than let Tupolev use his own design. That they did, and while it advanced them technologically to use the B-29/Tu-4, it was the equivalent of flushing much of Tupolev's research and development down the toilet, so in that sense, I can see how it would make sense to lose the chit.
I do think, however, that intelligence should allow for a small chance of being able to increase technology in areas you're not even researching, however. I think your rocket example is a good demonstration of that.
Logan Hartke