Shaka of Carthage
-
Posts
1,212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Shaka of Carthage
-
-
Kurt88
I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
-
Bill Macon
Right, Mechanized unit would be correct. But I think you may have just solved something I have been struggling with for months.
For generic SC units, Mech = 1/2 Tank Group.
Then, in the US case, instead of two Tank Groups, just the one.
Thank you.
Everyone
I also agree that the buildup for North Africa is best represented by the US having to build a HQ.
Iron Ranger
I thought I knew, but now I am not sure. What does "ST" represent?
You make a valid point about tank comparisons, but you also have to be careful because those comparisons start to bring up the starting Heavy Tank techs, which then brings up that the starting point for the Germans is '39, but the US is '41. Here is my take on the Hvy Tank techs.
Germany and US should be the same. Italy, UK and France should be one (1) less. Russia should be one (1) more. Hence...
Germany.... 1
Italy...... 0
UK ........ 0
France..... 0
US......... 1
Russia..... 2
-
I'll leave the issue of naval units and strategic bombers to the rest of you.
Taking into consideration the relative combat power and the fact that we are operating with generic units, this would be the historical US OOB 1941.
One (1) Army
Two (2) Tank Groups
One (1) Corps
One (1) Air Fleet
The only problem is with the Tank Groups. While the US has armored divisions, in 1941 they did not operate like the German armored forces. SC doesn't really have a unit to properly reflect them, so Tank Groups will have to do.
The above OOB reflects the fact that of the less than forty (40) combat divisions the US had, only sixteen (16) were considered "combat ready". Those where the units that where tapped to go to the UK as the First Army.
[ August 08, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Oak
I think you are mistaken about the exp.
Each time you attack you get .2 experience.
Each time you attack and it kills the defender, its .3 instead (used to be .5).
Each defense is .1.
I believe those are the latest numbers, but its been awhile. I don't believe attacking a port or a city differs in anyway, hence each attack gains .2.
-
Oak
Thats a interesting comment about the experience. My understanding, is that an experience gain is per combat, not based on the amount of damage you do. Hence, the poor results per attack on Ireland should have gained you as much expierence as an attack on Brest or the Brest port.
Its no different than when Italy trains its Navy on Malta. The majority of those attacks do no damage, but you still gain the experience.
-
I worked this stuff out with the experience bars and in light of what SeaMonkey said, I'll give the info here. (If someone wants it, I'll post the progression rates for each strength point increase).
One (1) strength 4 bar exp unit in one turn can become a ten (10) str 1 bar unit. If you increase the strength one (1) point a turn, you get a ten (10) str 2 bar unit. You can "fast track" it so that after three (3) turns, its a ten (10) str 1.7 bar unit.
Three (3) strength 4 bar exp unit, incremented one str pt a turn, after four (4) turns becomes a ten (10) str 2 bar unit.
A one (1) strength 2 bar exp unit, will give you a ten (10) str 1 bar unit (ie trained) if you are patient (incr 1str pt a turn).
A ten (10) str, 1 bar unit on average, after three (3) combats, will be a eight (8) or nine (9) str, 2 bar exp unit.
Whats the point of all of this?
A two (2) bar exp unit gives roughly 35% more damage and receives roughly 100% less in combat. Its even more deadly at the higher levels.
PS... I consider the exp equivalents as follows.
0 = untrained
1 = trained
2 = veteran
3 = crack
4 = elite
[ August 06, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Interesting point about the strategic materials. In another topic, we made the same point about Sweden, Norway, Vichy France, Switz and Spain.
Those nations (and others) were more valuable to Germany as neutrals than they were as conquests. Same with British and Ireland.
We've also debated how we could "fix" the problem. It also makes you wonder about the plunder concept, if that was removed, would some of the incentives to conquer these nations go away.
As Bill Macon pointed out, we have a very linear progression on diplomacy. Very much a "if X happens, then Y will happen". In the spirit of playability, not historical accuracy, I have a suggestion.
It would be nice if we had a "random or historical" option for the neutrals. Historical plays the way it does now. Random on the other hand, would have the starting "readiness" number of each neutral nation determined at the start of each game. <100%> to 100% for each nation works fine for me. Then the diplomacy ability would allow us to increase or reduce that readiness percentage.
This way, depending on the game, Ireland could be Pro-Axis or Pro-Allied. Now, the strategic position of Turkey is key, just like real life, and depending on the conditons, Turkey could enter the conflict on either side.
-
Off-Topic
I believe the advocates of the gay marriages would tell you that being recognized as a married couple makes it legally easier for dealing with other issues like insurance, health care, etc.
If someone wants to get married, who happen to be the same sex, I have no problem with that.
On-Topic
Do we really need a "tournament" to see who is "better" than someone else? Can't we all just get along?
-
The suggestion you made about limiting new unit builds to the capital city, is something that was suggested along time ago as a solution to normal units.
By making it so you only got one unit a turn (Soviets would get three), you've just solved the "instant" unit problem in SC without making alot of software changes.
A modified approach to that as well in ports, would also give a easy fix to the "instant" ship building. Hence one port per nation could build a Cruiser, Battleship or Carrier, while any port could build a Submarine. Ships are a minor issue, since the not many of us, if any, have enough MPPs to build multiple captial ships at once.
-
True, but the spotting difference is only one (1) hex (granted, it increases if you do LR tech). That reduction in spotting ability makes the "Battle of the Atlantic" more even as well. And the extra Strategic Bombers do make up for it, somewhat.
I thought about keeping the carrier in the Med, since Egypt, Malta, Gibralter really don't have any "seeing" ability like they did in real life. Giving them "Malta Air" isn't the answer, since 99% of us put it in England first chance. Thought about putting a Strategic Bomber there as well, but then the offensive ability is too much. But the advantages of the Air/Carrier are just too much.
Speaking of the Med, did you notice Iron Rangers "House Rule" about not using Free French? At first I thought no, but in a way, it makes sense. It stops the "evacuation" of French units to UK, forcing them to stay and fight for France. More importantly, it means you can't move the Syrian and Algierian units, something again, 99% of us do. I think he has come across something that should be the standard.
PS... With the no Free French option, I will increase my British limit to 12. That extra unit would be "Free French" of course. In a no-limit game, it makes even more sense.
[ August 05, 2003, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Still looking for people to play using this HouseRule (see first post). Any takers out there?
[ August 05, 2003, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Its interesting reading all the "reasons" why it should be one way or the other.
It also points up a big difference between a "historical gamer" (aka gamer) and a "game player" (aka player). Obviously, I consider myself the former, one of the reasons I never invade Canada or US.
As a gamer, when I am the Allies, I would never invade Spain since there are no advantages for me. I would assume that Mr H is kinda the same, so when he put in the effects of an invasion on Spain, he probably only thought in terms of Axis doing it. In that case (Axis invasion), the effect on the Minors makes sense.
Even though I will never forgive Terif for the carrier "doctrine"
, you have got to love the players who figure these things out. It makes life exciting for the rest of us, not to mention keeping us on our toes. I remember the first time Terif tore me a new one with those carriers. I was pissed. Now I sink those little buggers every chance I get. I remember when JerseyJohn complained about the Italian Amphib "Tango". He was not a happy camper. There where also a couple of guys from way back, who went nuts over the lack of unit limits.
Think of it this way. The players are actually doing us a favor, since when they spring these things on us, we gamers actually get to experience the type of "surprise" the French High Command felt when Germany unleashed Blitzkreig.
-
Hello? Anyone home?
Its Tuesday now, still waiting on when you are free.
Whats up?
-
I've read a few books on the Waffen SS. I don't remember the book in particular, but I do remember the theory.
Basically, the Waffen SS in the early years, when it was a couple of divisions deserved the "elite" status. The regular Army didn't like them because they didn't act like soldiers, they acted like fanatics. So instead of fire and maneuver to take out a position, they would just charge the position (hmmm... kinda the complaints the Army has about the Marine Corps). You also got alot of the "mavericks" that had problems with the Army. Modern day military know what I am talking about. And since the Waffen SS was selective, it could pick and choose.
You ended up with a unit that was better than a regular Army unit. In SC terms, it wouldn't be that far off to take one (1) Corps and rename it Waffen SS and keep it at three or four experience bars.
In the later years, when it was expanded to ridiculos levels (48 divisions) it lost any claim to being "elite" from training. This is when its claim to fame was that it got the best equipment first. It had 10% of the manpower, but 25% of the Panzer/Panzergrenadier units. In SC terms, you can name Panzer units "SS" to reflect that, but they were no better than the regular Army units. Since SC doesn't make the distinction between equipment, you can't show that.
Post 1943 is when the number of German divisions lost any meaning. Depending on how you count them, there were 300 to 500 German divisions. Most where in name only. Most wargames that try to represent that period agree on a breakdown like this.
250 Panzer, Panzergrenadier, Paratroopers and Infantry divisions.
20 Security divisions.
40 Static divisions.
3 Cavalry
25 Waffen SS
6 Luftwaffe "field divisions"
Security divisions where actually regiment size and had the old men, disabled, POWs and "whitebreads" (medical discharges).
Static divisions had the same kind of personnel the Security divisions had. Someone, I think it was Rommel, used these units to "hide" regular manpower to defend France, since all of these were stationed there. Once OKW figured it out, they stripped them as well for the East. The "Reserve" divisions are sometimes lumped together with these, but they were totally different creatures. Reserve divisions really are nothing more than the training commands. But they were pulled into combat as well. There was an old movie, where VMI or some other acadamey in the South took its cadets, led by grey beards with wooden legs and went to battle against a veteran Union regiment. Same concept.
Cavalry, including the SS cavalry were like the British Houseguards (?). Ceremonial. I would suspect that anyone who had political pull who wanted to stay out of the Russian meatgrinder ended up here.
Luftwaffe field divisions where all the Luftwaffe men than had no jobs anymore (since there were no pilots to fly the planes). Gave them rifles and told them to fight as infantry. Would have been better off going as replacements to the Army, but by then the political lines wouldn't allow it. As soon as they entered combat, they were destroyed. This is what happens when you send men into combat that are not trained.
And finally you have the Goring Panzer Paratrooper Division. It was his personal bodyguard and while all other German units sufferred big losses, these guys grew. They also got the best equipment. By the time they were finally put into combat, they were so large that they were split into two seperate divisions. Gotta love politics.
-
Good game Oak. Been there, know the feeling. Its what the military call "getting inside the decision loop". Thats what happened as soon as I got Edinburgh.
General "Hard Luck" Kuniworth is with the Italian Army assaulting Egypt in an advisory role. I believe the Lybians have nicknamed him Moustafa (desert mouse).
As far as the tech goes, very early, during Low Countries and France, I took MPPs and invested in tech. I had two (2) in Jets and two (2) in Long Range. It was 1942, and I had only gotten one (1) advance in each. That is not a huge technological advantage. You need at least a two (2) tech level difference to enjoy tech superiority. I had two (2) chits invested in Italian Jets/Long Range, which is not an easy thing to do. No tech advance there. His air & carriers had great experience (esp that damn Strat Bomber, with 4 bars), which they gained against Ireland. I normally don't do that (reinforce Ireland), but the opportunity to keep them away from France was worth it then. But I paid for it later on.
Since the reason for this AAR was to show some of the differences in a "limit" game, let me point out some of them. By reading the AAR, I think you can see you have to be selective about where to use your Air. Oaks aggressive use of the carriers forced me to keep them on the West Front longer than I liked, slowing down my neutral conquests. I laid so many traps for the carriers, but he wouldn't bite on any of them. See what you've started Terif?
We where finally in a part of the game where the limit effect shows. I had thrown five (5) units into England. That gave me five units less for Russia or garrisons. I stripped Norway and Sweden of garrisons (3 units), Denmark (1 unit) and Eastern Front (1 unit). That left me with about fifteen (15) units in the East. I had carefully used them, so 90% of those 15 units had two (2) bars of experience. But Oaks TERIF doctrine and me buying subs to ambush the carriers had left me with no HQ's in the East. Especially since I had sent Bock to England, and the other HQ was supporting my Air. I was about to buy two (2) HQ's for my coming battle with Russia, but I had been trying to buy one (1) for the last three turns. I had decided to limit my units in England to five (5), so I was in the process of swapping two (2) Armies from the East with two (2) Corps in England. It was a hard decision, since those where experienced Armies, but I needed to put down England before too many US units showed up. But I also needed experienced units to blow thru the Russians, before the numbers overwhealmed me. Decisions, decisions.
Italian air was critical, because it provided me with more options. But its expensive for Italy to buy. With four (4) Italian ground units committed to Egypt, the rest in garrison, Italy was no help to Germany on the ground. Only help came from the Air. And it needs an HQ to be effective.
The "feel" is just about right, though it would be better for the UK to have more Strategic Bombers. Until its fixed, I think the carriers should be replaced with battleships and UK is given maybe one or two more Strategic Bombers.
The coming US entry had me nervous, because it gives the UK the one thing I can't afford for it to get... more units. With enough, he can now "raid" the coast to find weak points, then amphib assault (if he had more strategic bombers, then he wouldn't have to "raid", he could just "see"). The more I could beat them down, the less it would have diverted the resources from Russia. But unless you pick off the UK navy, there is no hope of doing that.
Anyway, those would be the "differences" because its a "limit" game. Really makes a big difference in how you fight Russia, but that will have to wait for another time. The AAR thing was fun, but too much work. But it kinda gave me goose pimples to read about the turn, before I actually saw the replay.
-
I think the problem with what you are asking for, is that you are really asking for two different things. One being a distinction between units with different equipment, the other being the distinction of an elite unit.
There have been some discussions here that when you get a tech upgrade, only newly purchased units should reflect that higher tech. All of your older units have to pay to be "upgraded". I believe almost everyone agreed to the concept.
The elite unit status SC already represents properly thru the experience bar. You are correct, that certain nations should start with different experience bars to reflect the differences in training and doctrine. German units should start with two bars of experience (which you can reflect in the starting scenario). Then any newly purchased German unit, representing its training, would start at one bar of experience. The same concept would apply to the other nations but with different values. But if you do that, you really do need a time limit on when the unit arrives, no more "instant" units.
Thru the campaign editor, you can reflect the proper experience bar ratios already. Its just that the newly raised units start out as "untrained" units, which isn't so bad since they are "instant" units.
No way should you be able to "buy" units with extra experience bars to get "elite" units. It just didn't happen that way. A nations training doctrine should represent the number of bars its newly raised units would receive, but you shouldn't be able to get better units just by spending the MPPs.
-
August 3, 1941 ... US 76%, Russia 80%
XIV Panzers liberate Brest.
4th Army (Ge), XII Corps (Ge) and Bock HQ arrive in England. VI Corps (Ge) overruns more Strategic Bomber bases.
Scharnhorst CABG finds crippled No Name BBBG north of Irish coast and sinks it. Gneisenau CABG finds healty No Name BBBG off of Northern Ireland, damage for both sides.
The last of the Yugo resistance has been tracked down and calm has been restored.
Bombardment of Gibralter and Malta continue.
II Corps (Itl) captures Suez Canal, then attacks XIII Corps (Br), defending eastern Alexandria. 5th Army (Itl) assaults 1st Army (Can) in Alexandria from the west.
Italian sub sink British merchants in Med.
-
July 20, 1941 ... US 72%, Russia 76%
Romanian, Italian, Bulgarian and German units all enter Yugo to restore order.
Italian Caio Duilio BBBG and U-006 sub pack sink Gloucester CABG east of Alexandria. Italian ground units arrive over the horizon off the coast of Egypt.
XIV Panzers, supported by the Luft, elim the last of the French rebels in Brest and capture the port.
II Corps (Ge) lands in Scotland, attacking Scapa Flow by land. Gneisinau CABG and Aero I (Itl) sink No Name BBBG. Schanhorst and U-47 sub pack attempt to sink the other No Name BBBG in port. While damaging the BBBG (down to 1 str), they in turn receive heavy losses with U-47 sub pack getting entangled in the submarine nets.
XXX Corps (Ge) captures Firth of Forth port. VI Corp (Ge) captures Edinburgh, overrunning some Strategic Bomber bases in the process (lost 4 str).
Axis sub packs sink British merchantmen in the North Atlantic (13 MPPs). Italian sub packs sink British merchantmen in the Med (20 MPPs). Llyods of London is in turmoil.
-
July 6, 1941 ... US 68%, Russia 72%
Again, massive assaults from naval and sea forces off of Brest inflict damage. British mercenaries, calling themselves the 3rd Army Free French land on the coastline and shatter VII Corps (Ge) in Brest. They stop to loot the corpses of the defender, allowing civilians to flee from the port. Luft Air units, seeking retaliation, succeed in sinking a CABG, believed to be the Hood. Royal Air Force bases in England where struck as well. XIV Panzers (Ge) counterattacked the 3rd Army (Fr), causing moderate damages (3str).
II Corps and XXX Corps launch from Bergen a reconnaisance into Scapa Flow. The No Name BBBG is engaged in combat with Scharnhorst CABG and U-47 sub pack.
Eastern Med, British naval forces retreat, while Italian submarines resume sinking the merchentmen that tried to sneak past while the ASW battle was going on.
While an agreement has been worked out for Germany to adminster Greece as a territory instead of the Italians, subversive elements within Yugo, have overthrown the Yugo government. Peaceloving Yugo citizens are pleading with the Axis to restore order. The last of the Greek rebels in the mountains have turned in thier arms.
-
June 22, 1941 ... US 64%, Russia 66%
Massive naval and air bombardment again on Brest. British mercenaries, calling themselves the 3rd Army "Free French" have been seen off the coast. Brest braces for an invasion.
Eastern Med, Gloucester CABG (UK) and U-006 sub pack (Itl) engage in cat and mouse games. Both suffer moderate losses (3str each).
Germany and Italy have reached an agreement whereby Germany will adminster Greece. It may take awhile for news to reach the Greeks fighting in the mountains.
-
June 8, 1941 ... US 60%, Russia 65%
Three (3) CVBGs, one (1) BBBG, two (2) Air and one (1) Strategic bomber launch bombing runs on Brest. Citizens continue to leave the city.
In a surprise move, Italian 1st Army and 5th Army conduct an amphib pre-dawn landing off the coast of Athens. Continuing into the city, they have seized control of the government buildings and infrastructure. Albanian Corps probes the Macedonian Army to tie it down. Reluctantly, the Fuhrer asks that Bulgarian military tie down the Epirus Army. The Fuhrer requests a urgent meeting with Il Duce, over the Greek "situation".
Bombardment of Gibralter continues.
Italian submarine packs sink British merchantmen in the Med.
German intelligence reports that the British war production has stockpiled large amounts of steel (over 700 MPPs). Based on the TERIF doctrine, speculation is that the British plan to launch another CVBG. Admiral Rambo, of the OKM, furious that his RACK plan has been rejected, has announced his resignation from OKM and plans to immigrate to the United States.
[ August 04, 2003, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
May 11, 1941 ... US 49%, Russia 60%
U-47 sub pack strikes at No Name BBBG near Bergen. While it inflicted moderate (4 str) losses, it received heavy (5 str) losses.
Vittorio Venetio BBBG and Aero I bombard the Gibralter garrison.
Italian submarines have intensifed the sinking of British merchant ships (19 MPPs). This forces Llyods of London to double the insurance rates, something that was done less than a month ago.
The Fuhrer is please to announce that Bulgaria has signed a mutual military defense agreement with Germany.
[ August 04, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
While I don't agree with all of your proposed map changes, between the ones you've outlined and the ones JerseyJohn mentioned, it would add alot to the strategic decisions, not to mention fix some of the geographic problems.
[ August 04, 2003, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Isn't that interesting. Lets see.
Spain gives the Axis 48 MPPs. The "Minors" 100 MPPs (Hungary 20, Romaina 60, Bulgaria 20).
After Allies DoW on Spain, you get 50% of the Minors MPPs. Also the bonus of being able to get Gibralter. Assuming most people would go after Portugal, that gives you 10 more and the plunder.
You lose out on the Minors and the border with Russia.
I think in this case, you would be better off without the Minors. The extra MPPs (and plunder) isn't worth the increase in Russian readiness. Once you enter into war with Russia, then its a different story. Go after them then, assuming it doesn't mess up your Russian plans.
American historical OOB in 1941.
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
Iron Ranger
The US had four (4) tank divisions. You just can't count them under a Corps, because then you don't reflect the combat power they represent.
Its the same problem trying to represent the US Infantry divisions, which had attached tank and tank destroyer battalions. They had much more combat power than an equiv German or British infantry division. Thats why three (3) US Inf divisions equals a SC Corps.
Since I put two (2) tank and one (1) inf division in a US Tank Group, by itself it ends up with too much combat power because of the lack of doctrine. But assuming its a Mech Corp (which SC doesn't have) and that a Mech Corp is 1/2 the power of a Tank Group, then giving the US a Tank Group representing the four (4) tank and two (2) inf divisions works.
Siberian Transfer ... Under your first House Rule, how do you force the ST by March '42?
Heavy Tank Tech ... Since we can't control the tech advance rate, the relationship between the starting points of each nation is whats critical. And be careful with the Germans. The combat power for the ten (10) German Panzer divisions comes from the Pz III, Pz IV and Pz 38. Those models represent tech level one (1).