Liam

YES YES YES Vienna, Let us Here the Sound of Music... At least Prague-Vienna in 1 name? They were afterall in the AustrianHungarian Empire at one time

SeaMonkey, I think that's likely to take the game to another level. I wonder this much though I've got a very Sneaky thought, what about a Base rather than a City/Port, etc... Thatta way we can assign some sort of MMPage and evac abilities to any Corner of the Earth we might choose. I wonder what the logistics of such programming are and I think well worth while. Look at this way, at least somewhere like Crete, or Cyprus, or Sardinia could have Paras brought in? It would make for something interesting

Aztec, he can. It's already May, He could have...

An idea, not sure others will take this but a Port on Crete would be a good idea for at least 1 reason. History's sake. They said whoever owned it owned the Eastern Med why a lot of German Paras died there. In April 1941, british forces evacuated from mainland Greece to the large greek island Crete in the mediterranean. A month later Crete was invaded by german paratroopers. Although numerically superior, the british troops were defeated and evacuated Crete too. The main reason was that the british force in Crete lost to the germans in a test of determination. While the german paratroopers were elite troops who fought desperately for their life against the larger and better positioned british force, the british wanted more to preserve themselves. In such dire time to Britain, which then fought alone against Germany and Italy, the british force was not given a reason to defend Crete at all cost, and acted accordingly. But Ploesti was such a reason. Ploesti is about 700 miles north of Crete, across the Aegean sea. Britain already had then operational bombers (Halifax, and later Lancaster) capable of reaching Ploesti from Crete's air bases. Crete could be held just like the tiny island of Malta was, despite all attacks. If only Bomber Command had alerted Churchill in april/may 1941 that Crete is the only place from which their bombers can strike Hitler's oil supply, Churchill could order to hold Crete at all cost, and it could remain in british hands, and used to bombard and destroy Ploesti's oil industry and paralyze Hitler's military much sooner than in 1944. quoted from The Biggest Mistakes ww2 http://www.2worldwar2.com/mistakes.htm

Ev, interesting concept. I don't think that the Allies lacked the leadership. I think they lacked the experienced and organization of the GHC. That was a Key Factor. The Doctrines that were radical and until Poland and finally France and LC Unproven could've put them in a bind. The Germans took a new Tactic Blitzkrieg and took a Huge Risk but not to say that the Allies didn't have their advantages as well. The Allied High Command was not as New Age at the time and adapted and grew with the War. Sadly for us too slowly to stop Hitler. Historically the Allies would've had Leadership and the Russians would've been scamp due to more than one reason. The Old Saying Russians are bad Leaders is I believe untrue. They have fine leaders and those willing to give it their all to the death just as much as any other Nation. Their weaknesses was their Tyrannical Goverment that Hitler eventually adopted himself. In America or England for instance saying the Wrong Word would get you shot. While in America it would get you reprimanded<or dismissed> at worse. In Germany it wasn't so bad initially been when Hitler starting losing and losing his mind the punishments become more severe. I.E. Rommel's Self assisted Suicide due to something that may or many not have been true. The Freedom the West allowed for much mobility for their leaders to express themselves and go out and show what they had. Whilst the Russians and Germans<not so much, depending as Hitler was not as likely to order executions for losing> I feel were more worried about reprisals. The Germans were very hardened veterans by '43-'44'45. All the Years that great Allied Offensives were launched. In Many cases, Like Kasserine, Op Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge and the Notable Eastern Front Battles that were like Mass Graves the Allies took heavy Losses cause the Germans were good by this point. They had great equipment, well trained men and leaders and they were on the defensive... Both sides pretty much were level on the playing field aside from some basic facts. Supply, Numbers and ultimately One was a defeated people and the other a Winning One. Average German Soldat who knew half a bit about the War felt doomed by '43-'44... Soviets didn't care about losses as much as the West and more about Victory which should give them their own sort of bonuses, Fanaticism All in all, I think Leadership quality is big deal but Rate them accordingly to more than just technology. Rate them for the Wins/Losses/and a Dice factor of Learning Which SC does superbly but a bit too uberly I think in some cases

agreed, with new screenies, and all that sweet stuff! We the people want to see the Cool stuff

Heh, probably had some of those Transports with pompoms too but not many. The poor stuff you put on a transport the less troops, plus a Vast Majority of Transports if we'd look it up, likely 90% were defenseless...That or unable to do amphibious OPs. Tank, HQ, maybe Army too, should have reinforced Steel but the rest should go down to the bottom IMO. That way the gamey tactic is eliminated. The valuable units are too expensive to risk in some foolish action like attacking the Bismark. I assure you in half an hour, that puppy could sink several corps... No matter what they had on their decks... The lack of Salvos would be the limit Not recommended for use against BB's (although, read about the battle off of Samar for what 5" guns can do to capital ships, it's not entirely negligible.) [/QB]

agreed almost on all points.. Thanks for adding your 2 cents Terif

...well defense should be 0. I cannot imagine a transport group caussing much damage to a squadron of Battleships... </font>

Sombra: Yes Agreed! Limitations on #s is an important factor I suppose. It's always easy though to abandon something, this in the past can hurt. You have divert a Taskforce of Land Armies to retake a City if there is a missing corps. Ultimately I suppose better Recon Technologies will make more inexperienced players want to assualt undefended cities more? Hopefully. Panzer: I suppose that the set is already on what is there. If the Combat abilities of the units as you pointed out are altered it could be entirely different than I an picturing. Bigger Maps too! I'd like to see a few Naval combats and experiment with the game engine I had a game once with Terif when I was still a fledgling. He had no Royal Navy Ships left but his 3 Carriers after about May Fall of France. I thought, it's over but that was not the case. He blocked my Cruisers and Subs with the Transport. He even blocked my transports with Transports so that I couldn't invade England. He moved them tactically in way that England didn't need Land Defense and in the end he he won. Lars: The thought is a good one, Minus Tanks-Armies-HQs. Make everything else, Partisans-etc.. 0 Defense

SeaMonkey and Panzer, I get it..I see how the Cruisers could be used for sub hunting. Tech gives you a different approach but you still are left with the fact that Sea Zones are likely still to be patrolled by Corps rather than Cruisers. Unless of course LR Aircraft and More & cheaper subs are available, I assume that costs will go down with a bigger map and more units will be available? You see when you conduct a Naval battle now you do it like this. I.E. You come into the Baltic to kill my Kriegsmarine. If my Airfleets are busy killing France I am pretty stuck. You've got the #s so what do I do. I weigh my options here. If I have the time to waste I'll finish off France, then rush couple corps to the Rear block off Denmark-Swedish Passage and with 2-3-4 German or Italian Corps 5-6 Royal Navy Ships are locked. Place 1 or 2 subs in the picture all my air transfers over and there goes the War. Don't care to lose 400-500 MMPs in corps and your 3000 MPP fleet is dead, great trade off. This is repeated then in half a dozen more Theatres... Reason being, no way around it, it's effective but really would 3-4 corps block a passage in real life or in a wargame realisticly? No! Trying to make sure that in SC2 this isn't the case. I don't know if the designers are familiar with the way that Naval Combat works in SC but it's much like the above. For instance if you want to attack Egypt, even with spare parts you can do it with enough Corps and a few well places armies, there is a method... I suppose my insisting on a Cheaper Naval unit is to fill the Gaps so instead of getting this say at Gibraltar which is extremely common.. Battleship over Gibraltar Port, Corps hex to the south, Bang German ship hits it Indentified. Another Cruiser above the Port with a Corps above it, Italian ships hits the Transport, Bang, identified. Counter attack, Bang, bring in the Rear Fleet from Gibraltar you've got a killing Zone... Even keep the Corps in rear and surround the Remaining pounded Italian/German Navy and Lock it up.. Enemy Air can't free it, due to distance or lack of #s and you've got a seriously flawed system of combat... Which as you can see if you attack messes you up. The Heavier more expensive units can Counter you and the worthless units can retreat or be destroyed doesn't matter few thousand men get sunk it's a transport with no combat ability anyways. I think this looks better: Destroyer or another Unit, like a cheaper Cruiser takes the place of the Fodder unit. Lower the price somewhat of the Battleship and make the Capitol Battleships have more experience. Maybe that would make for some more realistic Naval combat without another unit. Carriers weren't as prolific in the Atlantic and are still very limited and expensive One is impossible. Allied Transports nor German Axis ones never played Cannon Fodder as far as I know or Recon Vehicles. The Other makes sense... however I may be off, the way SC2 Combat, Naval Maps, etc.. will turn out, I'm not certian they'll be much different in this aspect as far as I hear and can see in the previews. [ July 01, 2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Heh! Bill a Soldier? Looks like Ft Bragg too seeing as we've got a lot of Rangers here, small world. Living right next door to Bragg myself for the past 15 years

That's the general idea. Cruisers were just junior BBs in SC1. SC2 will provide additional naval target types for carriers and subs, so we'll be able to create a better rock-paper-scissors effect for the naval war. BBs vs naval targets with better naval attack values. Cruisers vs subs as ASW units with better sub attack values. Carriers vs naval targets with better naval attack values than land-based AFs. Subs will have a new Run Silent option. That sort of thing. And ... unit upgrades based on research advances will not be automatic, meaning players can customize their units. For example, give BBs gun-laying radar, give Cruisers ASW (sonar), etc. If you give everyone everything, then you'll be paying through the nose to upgrade and reinforce your high-tech units. So what types of naval units you buy, how many, and how you customize them will present some interesting challenges in the new SC2 naval war. :cool: </font>

SeaMonkey, Escort Carriers weren't a neccessity for Axis forces, they didn't have TransAtlantic Convoys, they had to pretty much rely on what they could plunder and get locally. So they didn't need that Specialized unit, but the UK/USA did. Axis were better off with a Surface Raider and Support ships.. They also made some pretty nasty Ones that did Hellish Damage before Combined Allied Surface Ships and Air Units responded to stop the Threat. Perhaps Country Specific Units would suit more? Like now, it's rare the Allies buy subs, cause they cannot raid for the USA, UK, or USSR. Although if their taskforces had the ability with TECH to upgrade with increased SubSpotting, Increased Spotting range altogether, as Sea Launched Planes give great Range, and increased hitting Power VS Subs rather VS Other ships<more specialized> then I'm for it. I'm also for reducing Corps to true SeaFodder, if one is intercepted by any Naval Ship without an Escort it sinks to the bottom no questions asked. That way, True Naval Superiority is required in order to win at Sea. That would stop that gamey tactic. Sort of like the Transport attack 100% Readiness Tactic [ June 29, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

SeaMonkey: I think that is a bit expensive and I wouldn't mind it, don't get me wrong but we're stuck here. If Hubert is reading our topic and considering adding another unit or offering the ability to design units in the Editor it would be different. I'm looking for a lowcost Raider/Recon/Space Filler. A small TP Boat, an E-Boat, a Destroyer, a Corvette, an escort Carrier even.. Yes but the capibilities of the Escort Carrier make it quite powerful and it's true all the above ships usually ran in a taskforce. But a Destroyer type unit with all those capabilities would be far too uber and expensive. You need to downgrade the unit somewhat or people will buy no Cruisers/Battleships and only those units. BUT give it bonuses vs Subs for Game Balance IMO More along the lines of a 200 MPP Destroyer, mobile, fast, Low Fire Power, good raider/match for a sub and a TOTAL Transport killer. If we had an editor I'd add in the Escort Carriers just for the Glorious Joy of more Combat. All sort of confusing, I know but, I think if you look at a Screenie and you see 5-6 Transports Blocking Waters. You see 15-20 Amphibious Units off UK, and think to yourself a moment what is missing, I feel there is something don't you? Air alone can't kill, The UK is missing the Historical/Neccessary ships to defend itself, The Germans likewise... They need air superiority during Battle of Britian to kill all the little nuisances swimming around the Channel and in SC Air Power during BOB is for killing Corps/Armies not for getting the fleet across in one piece which can easily be done

Ahhh, I know this is sort of like a run on sentence but I thought I should add another very good point. When any Good SCer plans a Naval Armada, or any arrangement of Vessels, it wouldn't be complete without Corps Transport Blockers and Recon Vessels now would it? I know that the BEST SCers use this technique and if you don't offer a fair cost Boat I will and many other will not stop! Why expend a 500-700MPP Ship when you can throw at 125MPP ship at them? Use a Minor and it's really even of lesser value. You see it takes 2 whacks usually for a Real MainLine ship to kill a transport no matter what it is, and can take more Air Hits to do the same and they go in places often people are afraid to send Carriers. They can block you in, they can cut you off, they can even inflict damage... Transport Corps is as valuable as subs in most of my games where there is Major Naval Warfare and Most of the time, cause I have a Fleet with them, I can pull them back before they're sunk and Hammer you're fleet to the bottom. I have seen entire Naval engagements won this way in SC and anyone would like a demonstration You're welcome to one To Finalize: This isn't just about a Unit, it's about a Tactical Missing Link

Blashy, U-Boats had batteries they required to run above water most of the time. Why aircraft could see them so well.Aircraft is a good way to hunt U-Boats especially if launched by Sea for range. Modern Day Submarines as you say, are Uber... but they're Nuclear now. http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm At the start of the War UK had 184 Destroyers and 45 escort ships. What was the primary role, supportive Corvettes, Frigates could be classified same as Destroyers to simplify. escort Carriers could be classified uniquely. but the 66 Cruisers at this juncture..mainly post-World War 1 with some older ships converted for AA duties. Including cruiser-minelayers, 23 new ones have been laid down.

Retributor: By then, the Manhattan Project would've produced how many A-Bombs? It would've not been possible for Germany to stop the USA without having thought ahead in their war Planning. We could've built Dirty Bombs as well, Germany is one small target in comparison with the MASSIVE USA. We could move our People and Industry as the Russians did into the Interior where perhaps a Dirty Bomb couldn't reach. While Germany a Nation no bigger than a few American States would've been a wasteland... The worst target for the Allies would've been poor Britian, so small and Population centers around cities Primarily... That would've hurt, but in retaliation the Russian #s alone by late '44 and into '45 would've killed off the entire German Nation by themselves without the USA or UK helping. Dirty Bombs weren't the answer, unless they were owned solely by 1 Power, and could be employed in Massive #s and you also had the Land forces to protect your Other Massive Fronts. Germany had Thousands of Miles Fronts, the USA was but 1 Contributor to their demise. V-3s are a What If Weapon, and even if you Nuked Millions of Ruskies, no saying that would've stopped them, it didn't when it was 20-35 Million Dead.

Final point: Cruisers cost around 500 MPP. That's too expensive to use in a MultiRole, I'd never buy one. Noone ever buys them in SC, why bother. Decrease the cost and call them something different, more accurate. the Mainline German Cruisers were more like Battleships anyways, considering some of the British Battleships were outdated and didn't match the German Cruisers. 3-4 Destroyers roaming a region probing for Corps would stop a lot of unneccessary BS that little E-boats and other things would've taken care of. i.e. the massive Red Army Corp landings in Denmark and Sweden. The Massive Corp Drops that Germany or Italy does on Egypt-USA-or other locations. Something that hits subs hard and comes in Large Numbers... and can be used as a Raider as well, instead of a U-Boat. Much of German Shipping was crippled by Destroyers early on, cause The Allies had so many

Yes! See all these good points, as far as smaller Ships, Cruisers/Escort Carriers/Smaller Destroyer type ships to escort Convoys. Do you think you could afford the Prince of Wales for every US to UK Convoy? I think not! I say that most Heavy Cruisers of WW2 weren't used for Convoys, that's why I say use Destroyers. An Intermediate cheap unit that like a corps fits. As far as V1-V2s effecting Months of the outcome of the War, I'm laughing. My Family lived in East Anglia, my GrandPa Went into House that a Buzzbomb had hit and it never went off to get his Wallet. It was a great terror weapon and Peedmunde deflected enough resources out of something that could actually have prolonged the War like Tanks/Fighters/Staple Infantry Equipment. Germany had fuel shortages, so launching thousands of V-Rockets definitely help the Ultimate Demise. I'd like any of you to show me a figure that shows that those Rockets did anything more than kill Civilians. I'll bet less than a few hundred actual Combatants Died from the use and MANY more German Technicians died<who're high valued> being bombed at the building and launching sites who could've been used to construct 100-200-300-400-500 more King Tigers that may have made the difference with the extra fuel at the Battle of the Bulge. The Rockets used at Stalingrad, the Tactical Type were not classified as V1s or V2s and were what you'd call Artillery. Yes, extremely effective, noisy, a morale breaker... But! Not what I meant in the discussion thread and not to be mistaken with Flying Bombs. That COULD never be equiped with A-BOMBs in WW2 era. Come on, it took us how long to make a flying Nuke without a Bomber to Carry it? We had much better technology than the Germans and they were years behind in their Atomic research. AirPower in Europe was Ify... Ever Watch Band Of Brother, see the obvious lack of Air Cover? Europe is bad weather a lot, not like SC, where every day is a Clear July Day in Kansas. Most of those Bombs we dropped didn't hit their target. It was only the fact we had sooooooooo many of them that they did effect the War. They did not however effect the War in the way some feel. I've read the proffessionals and I'll find their quote and books if you'd like. The old argument that AirPower alone could Win is not true. That's what WW2 Showed us. I have read the productions figures, Strategic Bombing didn't work. Air Power over the Sea was different. The Germans adapted to the Bombing. Norden was the best Bombsight and it wasn't that great. Germans manfactored parts all over a city so that if you bombed one spot, you didn't cripple the entire production of a Unit. A Engine in place, Wings in another, Fuselages in another. The German public did wonders in replacing what damage was done. They were very industrious, and the bombing furthered their resolve to fight on and harder and more fanatically as it did with Britian during BoB. Only now, in modern times with all the Billions spent on War can we make Airpower Precision weapon that can utterly decimate an enemy. Dirty Bombs would've made the Americans HATE Germany, talk about a rebuilding Plan? I doubt it, we'd of made them pay triple instead of the Marshal Plan [ June 28, 2004, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Why no Destroyers? I hope that I am wrong when I look at the pre-Game release images. I mean these SC Lovers who say that it's too tactical a unit to add and they don't argue Divebombers or V-1 V-2 Rockets or even Jets. During WW2 Rockets and Jets were pretty much Rare and because the technology was still expensive and only researched by a few Majors of which few every employed them. V-1s and V2s never played a Major role in the outcome of the war and never would have no matter what. They're impossible to aim, they're far worse than SCUD Missiles of OP Desert Storm which were lacking precision to hit anything. So why bother to include them when something like a Destoyer was a staple unit that help end the Battle of the Atlantic, produced in massive # and is not just a support ship. They were what stopped U-Boats!! You have U-Boats but not Destroyers? A Majority of US/UK Convoys used them and not Battleships or Cruisers the Mainline Heavy Gunned Ships of the Majors. Those ships were reserved for special uses unless of course SC2 as in SC is a breakaway from Naval and more a focus on Air Warfare which was extremely Ahistorical. Air Was still not a decisive Weapon and never proved to be in on the Major Fronts during WW2. It was proven that Strategic Bombing did not Cripple German War Machine, in fact German War Production increased in the Major Bombing Years. The RAF FireBombing was only a Terror Weapon that yes made many homeless people but did not break Germany's Back.

HEY! Takes 6 now!

appears to be 8 to cut off supply! look the the pre-release images. NICE what date you guys think?

Heh, Normal is right. heh, you'd see him at a local club shooting jello shots and manhandling the ladies!

If the Italian fleet is dead you can still kill the Allied fleet and still take Iraq. Take Vichy-Algeria and use LW with HQ in Sicily to pound Royal Navy till it's dust <if it doesn't get out of your way> then transfer over Armies, corps to Tobruk and go in slowly. 4-6 airfleets pounding Alexandria with HQ support will kill it. That's the extremely slow way to go but I've had to and done it successfully many times. Put Germany Armor to head your attack in front of the Land units. When Alexandria and Suez finally fall from overhwelming Air Power push right through to Syria and then you've got a direct resupply route to smash Iraq when you choose to. For Allies to take Iraq the UK should build up a good bid and transfer her units via Suez and use some of her fleet as a Sacrifice to prevent the Axis from getting Iraq first. If the Allies get it first and or let Russia get it then it's a Massive plus for them. The Germans need Gibraltar and Spain to make Iraq valuable. Who cares about Readiness for US/USSR if you get huge bonuses in MP, if the Germans are playing that slowly they're betting on Tech or something. In the end the Allies always have the MPP Upperhand, and they can only take it from you by Vamping the Minors. Good luck in your exploits folks