With Clusters
-
Posts
184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by With Clusters
-
-
What about the possibility of "altering" a naval building program once commenced?
Depending on the alteration desired, this could either increase the cost and time (paying the extra cost at the time the alteration is commenced), or decrease them (getting a MPP "rebate" - at a significant penalty, of course - at the time of alteration).
You could thus possibly "upgrade" an already laid keel, for extra time and cost. For example, weren't there some cruiser hulls converted later to a sort of pocket battleship by adding extra armor and heavier guns? I'm not sure, but I thought that the H.M.S. Hood was one such conversion (and possibly the reason why it sank in such dramatic fashion - the keel/hull couldn't handle the extra weight, or something?).
Or you could "downgrade" an already laid keel, to either convert it to something more usefull to your cause, or to cut time and cost. Weren't there escort carriers and such that were built on converted cruiser hulls? Was there ever a conversion of a battleship hull into something like a heavy cruiser to save time and money?
I would figure the later possibility least likely in SC2 terms, seeing as how it would neccesitate a new "escort carrier group" unit, and also that such ships were deployed mostly in the Pacific, IIRC, anyhow. But it would be nice if there was some added flexibility to such long range projects as capitol ship groups, not withstanding a possible impact on ease of play.
Any thoughts?
-
A very interesting, is somewhat dated, report/thesis/whatever. It jibes with what I've read elsewhere.
It seems that the Germans had a "sufficiency" of fuel until 44, but only sufficient for the modest equipage they had on hand, with nothing extra for increased mechanization, etc.
The Allies seemed to have had a "superfluoucity" (is that a word?) of fuel, which allowed them to field a much more luxurious and comprehensive battle array, which the Axis could never match.
I still think this could be reflected using some kind of "force pool" system. Will the system envisaged by the game change over time (meaning, will the limits be increased/decreased over time?)?
P.S. I wonder what happened to those big conversion projects in Germany, what with the oil boom in the 80s/90s, or in S. Africa, after the end of Aparthied. Anyone know?
-
Yeah, I think "delusion(al)" sums it up. Too bad, if there hadn't been the War, some of these people might have made great SF writers!
-
Just picked this book up today. Its about, well, the Warsaw Rising in 44, of course. Has anyone read this book? If so, care to share your opinion?
I remember a thread a while back about someone making some Rising scenarios. How are those coming along? I'll probably be keen on trying them out after reading this book, if its any good.
-
Ah, there it is. Thanks for the heads up, Sergei!
So, aside from its temporary effectiveness against Wahlbergs, apparently it is not intended for urban anti-infantry fighting? They must have just had one in the pipe, and couldn't resist shooting it at Donnie (entirely understandable - I hated NKOTB too)
-
Hey, I just watched BoB for the first time recently (Yeah, I know, what took me so long? Well, I live overseas, that's why). In the episode (3 or 4, maybe?) where they were clearing a villiage of Falschimjaagers (sp?) somewhere in Cherebourg (sp?), the Germans used what looked like some sort of PAK in the streets, albiet firing what looked like some sort of attached rocket grenade thingy (knocked Donnie Whalberg accross the street). Lord knows you have to take anything "Hollywood" with a large grain of salt, but what was that?
-
I still remember my first game as the Germans assaulting the Tractor Factory (where you get to play with the super-HQ, the 10-3 obergruppen!).
I prepped the assault nicely with MGs and flamethrowers (I must have had one that didn't run out of ammo after the first shot), and sent in the engineers. The 8-3-8s made it accross the free fire zone in the street (thanks to the leader's +3 command bonus), ready to kick some Red ass, when lo-and-behold, the obergruppen rolls a 12! :eek:
After seeing their formerly god-like commander run screaming for the hills like the most worthless green conscript, the engineers all blew their new moral checks. Just like that, the attack was stopped butt cold, game over.
It certainly made for a good annecdote, and my opponent enjoyed it imensly, but that disturbing incident put a real damper on my enthusiasm for SL.
-
Aineias "the Tactician" perhaps, for the possible classical reference? Just a wild guess...
-
In my limited experience, the times I have seen "recon by suicide", it has usually been carried out by the defensive player, trying to sus out the attacker's plans.
Even then, there are risks (more than just the buy points spent on the units, or their value in point terms at the end of the game).
In a recent game (and ongoing game, if my foe ever sends me a turn again), my opponent, the defender, sent two MG halftracks blundering into my advancing lines. One was swiftly taken out by my CAS (cool and all, until it spent the next 4 turns straffing the wreck, before disappearing, never to be seen again, but that's a whole nuther issue).
The other one ran into my "feint" force, where it was engaged by infantry, and the lone tank assigned to the feint.
So for the price of two halftracks and crews, what did he learn? Perhaps exactly what I would have liked him to believe - that my feint is actually my main attack.
Niether lived long enough to get substantial information. What they learned might actually have been detrimental to my opponent's understanding of the situation.
So this kind of "recon" can be a double edged sword. A lot depends on luck (depends on what your "recon" units happen to encounter - lucky for me, my enemy didn't drive into my main force), and luck can go both ways.
Just a thought...
-
Somethings I got from the Beever book:
The preperatory bombing of Stalingrad, while it killed loads of civilians, made the city a perfect fortress, what with all the blocked streets and tangles ruins. I suppose Berlin was bombed heavily too, but over time, perhaps allowing the residents time to "clean up" the mess, and thus inadvertantly allowing easier access to the attackers?
Beever also states that Paulus was negligent in handling his remaining mobile assests, not pulling them back to Stalingrad from the Dneiper (damn, whatever the river it was that was west of the Volga - the book is packed away, and I have no map handy, sorry), and not organizing them to counter attack the Russians. The details are a bit hazy in my mind, but I believe the point was that Paulus was obeying Hitler's order to stand fast, and not attempt a "breakout"? Not sure how that would negate a possible counter attack, so I'm probably confused. I do believe Beever placed a fair amount of blame on Paulus for the initial success of Uranus though. Perhaps someone with his (or someone else's) book could provide more info?
-
What about all those stories of heroes diving on grenades in order to save their buddies? Seems a foolish thing to do if it wasn't all that dangerous (meaning, if its not likely to kill bunches of your friends, wouldn't it be better to just shout "RUN!", and do so yourself too?). Just wondering where all those stories fit into this picture.
-
Back to this again, are we? Wow, I've seen at least two threads on this before (one in SC and one in SC2, I believe), and I haven't been around all that long
I do believe Edwin P is right - legal stuff. -
Seems like this topic is up for debate again. Might as well bump this so people can see what's already been said.
-
The only point of having stacking would be if multiple units were able to execute attack commands simultaniously (which I wouldn't mind seeing, but which I don't think is going to happen), or you wanted to allow a defender to get a serious defensive bonus (very serious in a game where attacking units can only go one at a time against effectively "doubled" units). If those options aren't on the table, no point in it. Might as well just make more and smaller "tiles"...
-
Plus it would be usefull to know exactly what purpose vehicular camouflage is/was supposed to serve, from someone who has practical experience (like Sergei said, meant more as a counter to air attack, ground, etc.?).
-
That's a good idea. It would be nice too if there was some kind of "reminder" function for all (or pre-designated) unmoved units. Don't know how often I would forget to move my random subs as the Axis player (esp. early war, before the Battle of the Atlantic really heated up)
-
I see plenty of valid arguements on both sides. But if Germany had a sufficiency of oil (sufficient for what exactly, though?), why Hitler's dissasterous obsession with the oil in the Caucases (sp?)? There was a similar thread on this a while back in the CMBB forum, where someone made the logical point that even if the Germans had managed to capture the oil producing area, certainly the Russians would have left the infrastructure in ruins. Yet still Hitler persisted (even at the expense of arguabley much more important/realistic objectives) in this attempt. Why? Merely to deny those resources to the Russians? The answer must be in some books somewhere (but not any near me
). I don't know why, but der Fuhrer seemed awfully keen on it... -
One thing that I'm not sure has been mentioned (again, if so, I'm sorry): Can MPPs be transfered among countries? The idea of the Western Allies sending troops to fight in Mother Russia (something that can and often did happen in SC1) seems a bid absurd, considering Stalin's mistrust and paranoia (doubt he'd enjoy a bunch of Capitolist soldiers trooping about his Communist paradise), but sending MPPs (in terms of Lend Lease/Murmansk type supplies and equipment) seems entirely reasonable. On another note, this might lend itself to minor allied "independance", in that they could keep some MPPs for "domestic" production, but send other's to their "patron" major power for their own uses. I believe that Canada shipped a great number of war supplies to the UK, to be used by Brittish troops (ships and planes come immediately to mind).
-
"The government will go to any lengths to protect this technology".
If I were you, I'd get out the tinfoil helmet, and hide in the deapest hole you can find!
-
So, to sum up, the only time "hiding" a vehicle does any good is at the set-up, and only for "smaller" (how small?) vehicles, and even then, it doesn't work against infantry at all (at any range?). Is that pretty much it?
-
What about hiding at set-up? Is it just the same as using the hide command once the game has started, or is it more effective (assuming time to arrange some sort of cammoflauge, etc.)? Or is it a worthless order all the time? Even against planes? Can anyone state any advantage (even small ones) to "hiding" a vehicle, at any stage in the game?
-
I'm definitely not talking visuals. I want to know if I order a vehicle to "hide", will it be actually hard to spot (and not clobbered while sitting defenseless w/ its thumb up its posterior) by the enemy. To be truly effective, does it need to be "ordered" right at set-up? In what sort of terrain is it most/least effective? If a vehicle has moved after set-up (and presumeably ditched its cammo net or whatever), is the command worth a damn? Meaning, does driving into some scattered trees or brush, and then turning off the engine, have an actual (in terms of not being spotted) effect in the game?
-
That was a cool Styx song, by the way
-
Honestly? :confused:
I do believe Edwin P is right - legal stuff.
Research catagories....What we know so far.
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
When talking about the resources necessary for a worthwhile Bomb program, what are we asking?
Historically, the US (albiet w/ some UK help) was able to spend massive resources on the Manhatten Project, yet still field vast conventional forces (while sending huge amounts of supplies to allied forces).
If the Bomb is an option, how would that be reflected? What if a US player a-historically decided not to engage in the undertaking? Would he then be able to create even more conventional forces (say, an extra 10 armies and/or armor units, or an extra 5 carrier groups, for example)?
Of all the Major Powers, only the US seems to have had the wherewithall to engage in something as costly as the Bomb project, while simultaniously deploying vast conventional armaments. Understanding how "restricted" the US was in SC1, and also the fact that in reality, the US engaged in the Bomb project while fighting a war on two massive theaters (only one of which will be represented in "official" SC2), there is a lot to consider in order to equitably and "realistically" include the Bomb in the game, AFAIC.
IMO, I wouldn't mind seeing it included, but only if all the ramifications were fully considered and accounted for.