Retributar

[Orig. Post]'J P Wagner' - "Based on comments spread about, I think that most of what you want can be done...While you may not be able to add additional unit types to the pre-existing SC2 force pool, you'll be able to modify any of those that do exist." ------------------------------------------------- Question...i was thinking i would like to make a Campaign or Scenario on a lesser scale than ARMIES or CORPS(I prefer Divisions and Regiments or Smaller in this instance),... so i would like to 'DESIGN MY OWN UNIT TYPES' for that purpose...as i would expand say for example 'Italy & Sicily' to probably 3 to 4 times or so the present size as it appears in the regular game. Any chance of a 'Graphic-Unit-Editor'???...if not now...then an add-on for later?. If its not me that wants it...someone else well eventually...as mods are made for this game. For WW1 & WW2(Europe & Pacific), WW3(Present Day) as well as perhaps Fantasy!. I have no idea how difficult this would be to introduce into the game...so im just stabbing in the dark on this one!. ------------------------------------------------- Another thing...'Reinforcement Schedules and Withdrawls',...again...any possibility of this feature being in the 'Unit or Campaign Editor' as well?. [ May 22, 2004, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

I have another idea , whynot have a 'TASER' hooked up to each player verified by web-cam...so that when the time limit exceeds 1 minute...the 'TASER' kicks in and gives you a 2 second jolt!. That'll make the game really interesting!.

Well if you cant really wait for this game to come on the market...try this one for now...the original of this game was the first computer wargame i ever played...and i loved it!. http://www.killerbeesoftware.com/kbsgames/edee/ Since the first game (EMPIRE)...came (EMPIRE DELUXE)...then this was bought out by someone who now is selling 'Empire Deluxe Internet Edition'...and in Summer 2004 'Empire Deluxe-Enhanced Edition', Its a good game!... you can get it right now!. ------------------------------------------------- I found a site with FREE-GAMES...nothing special...but whynot take a look!. http://www.civilwarsearch.com/hutsell/ They have amongst other War-Games...'World War II in Western Europe'. ------------------------------------------------- 'Every Day Above Ground Is A Good Day!' [ May 22, 2004, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

Im no expert on victory conditions,...i just prefer 'total victory'...meaning that i now own the opponents country and that he is out of business, any other victory is just a diluted form of that prize...and can/could be defined in this game!. Time-Caps have their uses...they could be set up in the editor i would hope...though i prefer to rarely use a time-cap...unless there is a Historical Precident for such!.

I found 'HOI' hard and difficult to learn at first...but, once i had learned how to play the game...it was easy after that!. It's complexity didn't bog-down the game for me after the initial learning curve was passed!. I prefer deep, complex, realistic, historically accurate games myself!...but, i too, also need 'Beer and Pretzel' games (Like 'Empire-Deluxe' in the days of Old)...for the times when im not up to the effort of an involved game...or for when i need a change of pace!. There's always room for games like that!. In the end...i don't really care whether 'HUBERT' uses Hexes or Tiles as long as it doesn't adversely affect the game. In fact im looking foward to seeing just what this 'Tile-System' can do!. [ May 22, 2004, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

http://www.britannica.com/normandy/articles/Ultra.html Ultra:-Allied intelligence system that, in tapping the very highest-level communications among the German armed forces, as well as (after 1941) those of the Japanese armed forces, contributed to the Allied victory in World War II. The incoming signals from the German war machine (more than 2,000 daily at the war's height) were of the highest level, even from Adolf Hitler himself. Such information enabled the Allies to build up an accurate picture of enemy plans and orders of battle, forming the basis of war plans both strategic and tactical. Ultra intercepts of signals helped the Royal Air Force to win the Battle of Britain in 1940-41. During the Normandy campaign of June-August 1944, signals between Adolf Hitler and the German command in the West were forwarded to Allied commanders; this led to the destruction of a large part of the German forces in northern France. In the Pacific the Germans had supplied their Japanese ally with an Enigma machine as early as 1937; the modified Japanese version, called "Purple" by the Americans, was duplicated by the U.S. Signal Intelligence Service well before Pearl Harbor. Resultant revelations of Japanese plans led to U.S. naval victories in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway, crushing the offensive power of the Japanese fleet, and enabled American flyers to find and shoot down the plane carrying Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, the Japanese commander in the Pacific. This is how the Allies mainly won the war!.

Your right about that 'Panzeh'...the 'Germans lacked standardization in anything'...is basically very true...although a little harsh!. "Too many fingers into too many pies...brings one to his own Demise!."

Heh!...im usually thinking in Divisions....not Corp's or Armies. So that brings up a point now that i didn't think of before,...when it comes to designing your own scenarios. If i wanted to design my own 'Battle For Italy'...i would rather have smaller units than ARMIES...what-about a provision to create units as small as Divisions or Brigades...and be able to name them?. Also ...if i wanted to use 'Historical Units'...could the Editor include options for withdrawing or recieving Units that were withdrawn or sent in Historically?. It could warn you a few turns before hand...then automatically remove the unit!. [ May 21, 2004, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

Hitler was worse than Stalin...but, not by much.

You are correct 'Ron'... http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/BARBAROS.html 1941: 'June 22. Operation BARBAROSSA begins. Over 3 million German soldiers and 3300 tanks cross the Russian border. The Wehrmarcht (German Army) is organized into three Army Groups . http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/2941/oob.htm -June 22, 1941 AXIS: ARMY GROUP NORTH "Leeb" 29 Divisions including 3 Panzer Divisions and 2 Motorized 18th ARMY " Kuchler " PANZER GRUPPE IV " Hoeppner " 16th ARMY " Busch " LUFTWAFFE Luftflotte I (Keller) ------------------------------------------------- ARMY GROUP CENTRE (Bock) 49 Divisions including 9 Panzer, 6 Motorized and 1 Cav. PANZER GRUPPE III (Hoth) 9th ARMY (Staruss) 4th ARMY (Kluge) PANZER GRUPPE II (Guderian) LUFTWAFFE Luftflotte II (Kesserling) ------------------------------------------------- ARMY GROUP SOUTH (Rundstedt) 42 Divisions including 5 Panzer and 3 Motorized 6th ARMY (Reichenau) PANZER GRUPPE I (Kleist) 17th ARMY (Stulpnagel) Rumanian 3rd ARMY 11th ARMY (Schobert) Rumanian 4th ARMY LUFTWAFFE Luftflotte IV ------------------------------------------------- One of the MAIN-REASONS why i brought up STACKING is to deal with a situation where you are forced to retreat,...and behind you is more of your own armies blocking your retreat-path. What happens to you in this game...do you just DISENTIGRATE?...thats what happened in SC1. But, really that should-not happen...one should be able to retreat through your own lines...especially if the STACKING-LIMIT has not been exceeded. Here is one reason why i like using a STACKING-LIMIT. So what exactly are we dealing with as Unit-Sizes?...3-4 Divisions per game unit?...if so...there is plenty of room to retreat another 6 - 7 Divisions through that one Unit!. Infact...a 50 X 50 mile Tile should be able to hold 20 Divisions...though it would not ordinarily be a good idea!. Hoever for retreat puposes...there is no reason i can see that says it can't be done!. [ May 21, 2004, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

This is a good discussion 'Sgt. Emren'...so im going to ask you...how many men were crammed into the Falaise Pocket?. How many men were at the battle of Waterloo? What happens at Stalingrad when the German lines are reduced to a pocket...how many men were in that small area? ------------------------------------------------- -I'll start here: FALAISE POCKET- http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_17.htm "It suddenly became apparent to the Allied commanders that the Germans in Normandy, by attacking westward toward Avranches, had pushed their heads into a noose. The bulk of their forces-two field armies amounting to more than l00,000 men-were west of a north-south line through Caen, Falaise, Argentan, Alencon, and le Mans. If the Canadians attacking from the north took Falaise and if the XV Corps attacking from the south took Alencon, thirty-five miles would separate the two Allied flanks and the Germans would be virtually surrounded." ---So in this case 100,000 German troops were virtually concentratred into a 35 X 35 mile Box/Tile!. If they couldn't STACK then what would you have them do in the game?...that they simply VAPORISE?. Yet...the majority of them managed to escape!. ------------------------------------------------- -STALINGRAD POCKET:- http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/vaughan.html On 22 November, the Russian pincers closed the ring near Kalach, thereby encircling Sixth Army in the land bridge between the Volga and the Don (Jukes, 1985:107). Some 250,000 German soldiers were trapped. At STALINGRAD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad The Axis powers lost about a quarter of their total manpower on the Eastern Front(Mine: Here at Stalingrad), and never recovered from the defeat. -Casualties:500,000 Axis (250,000 German & 250,000 German Allies). Im going to keep looking for the actual size of this area, but i don't think this POCKET was larger than 50 X 50 miles!. If a rescue party were successful, some of these men might have been rescued. This to me...tantamounts to a sort of STACKING!. So...according to YOU if we couldnt STACK then 90% of these forces would have immediately been written off!..."HISTORICAL-EVIDENCE" proves STACKING as VIABLE!. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/stalingrad/uranus.aspx But as the Germans had 'CONCENTRATED'(STACKING!!!) their forces to hammer upon the city on a rather narrow front, the shape of their perimeter presented obvious possibilities. Stalingrad was at the tip of a long salient, 25 miles deep and 40 miles wide at the base. The text-book solution would be to attack it's flanks and trap the Germans in a pocket. ------------------------------------------------- So i only spent 15 minutes on the NET to bring this information up...i can bring up much much more...no-problem!. This shows that STACKING was REAL...and should be CONSIDERED!. ------------------------------------------------- previously i posted > May 17, 2004 06:30 PM "...well...so i personally prefer hexes and stacking...but am willing to give tiles the chance to prove themselves." [ May 20, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

Whats the matter with you!. This game has one division per 50 mile front!...im sure if one really wanted too they could put 10 divisions in that 50 X 50 mile box. Why should it not be realistic?. your argument is just one of preference...and nothing else.

If you know anything about 'ULTRA'...then you know why the Germans were defeated in WW2...the Allies knew almost everything the Germans were going to do before the German Generals knew!. The only reason why the Battle of the Bulge had any success at all was because Hitler ordered strict radio silence on this matter. With all this in mind...i am still very much impressed and have tremendous respect for what the German Armed Forces accomplished in WW2...under those circumstances,...but i am also very grateful that they were defeated!. Do you really believe that the Battle at Kursk was totaly unrelated to the Invasion of Sicily?...think again!. [ May 19, 2004, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

'Shaka of Carthage'...that Sounds ok to me... . I didnt have information on Infantry Mechanized [iE:(Motorized)] units...but had posted under ' ev's ' topic 'Mechanize Infantry vs. Tank'... > 1943 - 1944 Panzer Division, 1944 Wehrmacht Panzer Division & 1944 Waffen SS Panzer Division's...'ALL PANZER DIVISIONS '. --Yes...they do show 'MOTORIZED'in there mixed in with 'MECHANIZED'...so as you say...they have both. --I would assume that since resources were scarce...outside of actual Panzer Divisions...there would be 'MOTORIZED' transport...NOT...'MECHANIZED'. [ May 19, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

O Hell...even though this game will not be as detailed with goodies as i would like...i will still buy it...even if its delivery date is many months past the announced date!. Its good for what it is...but, i would like it much better if all or most of the ideas in this forum were implemented into it. That would require a larger map-system.

I hate to crush your idolization of Guderian...i have no complaints about him being an excellent general...but Guderian was not the original architect of the idea of a concentrated tank-force!...he took De-Gaulle's idea and made it a reality!. Now id have to do research to be absolutely precise on this...but, i will try to go from memory for now. BUT...before that ...again i have to crush another ideology: Yes George S. Patton was a great general...but, a lot of the credit of his success goes to 'ULTRA'(Research ULTRA on the internet)...the codename for the Allies secret progect to decipher the German Communications codes. Before Eisenhower sent Patton into Southern France...they already knew that the Germans were not there in force...and so sent Patton whom they knew the Germans respected...they wanted to use him to instill fear in the German High Command ... to destroy their will to resist...so they made a Boogey-Man out of George S. Patton...made him look larger than life!. Thats also why...the Russians had 20 miles of indepth defenses and killing boxes waiting for the Germans...they never did that before KURSK!!!...its because The US & Britain showed Stalin the deciphered German Communications showing him that he was going to be attacked...So Stalin built a Slaughter-Box for the German Armee and amassed huge reserves to counter-attack after the German Panzer Units were mauled into hamburger-meat!. ***Charles De Gaulle was the 1st and true originator of the concept or idea of what later became the panzer Division ...but, the French Commanders would have nothing to do with his ideas...and so they were never studied or implemented.*** I think De Gaulle lead an armoured formation as he had outlined in his book in the south of France before France was completely taken over by the German Army. His idea was then studied by Guderian first..., thats my recollection... ------------------------------------------------ Got bored waiting for more posts and researched Charles De Gaulle: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/charlesdegaulle.html Charles de Gaulle A study on military theory, Vers l'armée de métier (1934; The Army of the Future), defended the idea of a small professional army, highly mechanized and mobile, in preference to the static theories exemplified by the Maginot Line, which was intended to protect France against German attack. He also wrote a memorandum in which he tried, even as late as January 1940, to convert politicians to his way of thinking. His views made him unpopular with his military superiors, and the question of his right to publish under his name a historical study La France et son armée (1938; France and Her Army) led to a dispute with Marshal Pétain. ---------- http://www.needham.k12.ma.us/high_school/cur/Baker_00/2002_p5/bakerp5_df_1-02/de_gaulle.htm During the time between World War I and World War II, de Gaulle promoted mechanized warfare, and the tank, accusing the French Army as being insufficiently mobilized and mechanized. He was shunned and ignored, and promotions were given to others. Petain became Marshal of the French Army. De Gaulle wrote a book, The Army of the Future, which was not well known in France itself, but part of German Military curriculum. (1932-1937) He was dubbed 'Mr. Motor' for his pro-mechanized views. Although he did get recognition in the late '38 months, when two armored divisions were assigned to the Rhine, he said it was "too little too late" . De Gaulle said he could see war written in the skies of the Rhine. When World War II came, the German First Panzer Army used Gaullist tactics against France, and sent the country down ------------ http://www.angelfire.com/tn/ww2essays/19401.html Much has been made of the role of leadership in the debacle. Typically the argument runs that, in particular, France's military leaders were too old and unable to comprehend modern mobile warfare. While all the senior commanders were veterans of the first war, so were the German commanders. Although Germany did lead the way in implementing new techniques of armored warfare--the blitzkrieg--these concepts were first expounded by de Gaulle in 1934. The main German proponent of de Gaulle's tactics, Heinz Guderian, struggled for years to win acceptance. Had Germany not been a totalitarian state, it is doubtful that his ideas would have been implemented. [ May 20, 2004, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

-------------------------------------------------

Yeah!...there are so many suggestions here 'Curry'...that by the time the game is ready...you will be 'Bleached-Bones' & 'Cob-Webs'...clutching onto your 'Joy-Stick' staring at a 'Blank-Monitor-Screen'. ***Just-Kidding***

'ev' im a little tired right now so im operating on fuzzy-math...but i'll try!. Originally Mechanized Infantry(Tracked/Armoured Vehicles), Mechanized Artillery, etc was created for the 'one main purpose' and that was for "keeping up with the Tanks!"...and so are integrated into the Armoured Units. So...as you just stated...'Armoured Units' ALREADY have 'Mechanized Infantry'. so the only advantage of using 'Mechanized Infantry'...excuse me/'MOTORIZED INFANTRY' would be that they would be faster than 'Regular leg Infantry' units...and INFANTRY is very good at Urban-Warfare...as well as for other specialties!. I don't know how they have designed this game...but for 'URBAN-WARFARE'...it would be incorrect of them to have 'Armoured Divisions' be as effective as 'Infantry' or Dismounted 'MOTORIZED Divisions' fighting in the towns and cities. Historically...Armoured Units in towns and cities have paid a 'HIGH-PRICE' for fighting in such environments...and should 'Not-Be-Used-There'. So in 'Summarization'...'Infantry' or 'Motorized Infantry' do thier best work in Urban, Forest,& Rough-Terrain Environments...and can cross small rivers where Tanks cannot!. 'Armoured Units' do their best work in 'OPEN-COUNTRY'...and not in the other areas i just mentioned!. So if the game is correctly designed...you will have no-choice but to diversify your forces and build composite forces...not just Panzer-Divisons or Tank-Armies!. That's it for now!. [ May 20, 2004, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

'Ensign Shortstraw - Blew Rgt LTB'...Well i wouldnt really know. 'Never-Winter-Nights' has that feature...however it was not really truly automatic...i just had to press the appropriate icon and the download would start...then install itself...after checking to see what i had first...i never had a problem with it...it always worked perfectly!. [ May 19, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

'Col. Gen. Guderian'...Yes you are correct about the micro-management...but when i got used to it ...it was no problem at all!. That game had a high learning curve!. ------------------------------------------------- 'ev'...i thought your suggestions on C3 research was 'EXCELLENT'...in my opinion it should definitely be used....unfortunately, its not up to me!. Most of your suggestions are very very good, i find it difficult to find a problem with any of them...other than the programmers might not be able to handle them under the constraints of time money or whatever!. [ May 19, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

-Originally Posted By 'ev'... 3. Why should a player spend on mechanizing infantry instead of buying more and better Tank Groups? Is there anything that sets mechanized infantry appart, or is it just a regular infantry with more AP's? ------------------------------------------------- Well...its obvious that Armoured Vehicles, especially Heavy Tanks offer great protection for Personnel as well as deliver devestating firepower...so yes...Armoured Formations are definitely better than any other Army-Formation. I'll say though...that in the real-world...there were never ever enough Tanks or other Armoured Vehicles to go around...so in WW2...the Germans had no choice but to construct some Mechanized Infantry Divisions instead of Panzer Divisions...and for the same reason had many many more Infantry Divisions!. It wouldnt be realistic in this game to allow for just the construction of Armoured Divisions...not only that...Armoured Divisions were unsuitable in the real-world for Urban-Assault work...as is shown in Iraq right now!. That job is done best by the Infantry Divisions. ------------------------------------------------- ***Found something here...its hard to get an exact direct answer to your questions...anyway its interesting reading...will add more as i find it!.*** ------------------------------------------------- http://www.warfarehq.com/articles/milsim_articles/fm3_0_chpt4.shtml The Elements of Combat Power: -4-3. The ability of Army forces to fight and win underlies success in all operations, whether lethal force is used or not. Combat power is the ability to fight. It is the total means of destructive or disruptive force, or both, that a military unit or formation can apply against the adversary at a given time. Firepower: -4-11. Firepower provides the destructive force essential to overcoming the enemy’s ability and will to fight. Firepower and maneuver complement each other. Firepower magnifies the effects of maneuver by destroying enemy forces and restricting his ability to counter friendly actions; maneuver creates the conditions for the effective use of firepower. Although one element might dominate a phase of an action, the synchronized effects of both are present in all operations. The threat of one in the presence of the other magnifies the impact of both. One without the other makes neither decisive. Combined, they make destroying larger enemy forces feasible and enhance protection of friendly forces. ------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by 'pzgndr': "Mech research will only increase corps and army AP, for greater mobility at increased unit cost". ------------------------------------------------- Maneuver:***[My Comment: MOBILITY/Increased Speed...Creates opportunity for MANEUVER...and therefore SHOULD-ALSO-INCREASE the "FIRE-POWER-EFFECTIVENESS" of the Unit as well]***...*SEE 'Firepower:'...above reading.* -Place the enemy in a disadvantageous position through the flexible application of combat power. 4-43. As both an element of combat power and a principle of war, maneuver concentrates and disperses combat power to place and keep the enemy at a disadvantage. It achieves results that would otherwise be more costly. Effective maneuver keeps enemies off balance by making them confront new problems and new dangers faster than they can deal with them. Army forces gain and preserve freedom of action, reduce vulnerability, and exploit success through maneuver. Maneuver is more than just fire and movement. It includes the dynamic, flexible application of leadership, firepower, information, and protection as well. It requires flexibility in thought, plans, and operations and the skillful application of mass, surprise, and economy of force. Combined Arms: -4-102. The fundamental basis for the organization and operations of Army forces is combined arms. Combined arms is the synchronized or simultaneous application of several arms—such as infantry, armor, field artillery, engineers, air defense, and aviation—to achieve an effect on the enemy that is greater than if each arm was used against the enemy separately or in sequence. The ultimate goal of Army organization for operations remains success in joint and combined arms warfare. Its combined arms capability allows commanders to form Army combat, CS, and CSS forces into cohesive teams focused on common goals. ------------------------------------------------- http://www.arl.army.mil/slad/AWSS/SF-areas/combmaneu/warfighting.htm -2.1.1 Armored Battalions. The current U.S. Army armored battalion is equipped with the M1 Abrams series tank. The battalion is composed of four tank companies and one headquarters and headquarters company (HHC). Armored battalions are particularly well suited to rapid, violent attack operations over great distances in all but the most difficult of terrain. Armored units are extremely capable, and can conduct any offensive or defensive mission EXCEPT RETAINING TERRAIN. ***[My Comment: PanzerGrenadiers were required to keep up with the Armoured Brigades...to protect them from being destroyed by enemy infantry units].*** -2.1.2 Mechanized Infantry Battalions. Mechanized battalions are currently organized around the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV). Mechanized battalions consist of four mechanized infantry companies and an HHC. -2.2.1 Infantry Battalions. The infantry battalion is organized around the rifle squads and platoons of the infantry rifle company. Ideal for fighting under conditions of limited visibility in forests, jungles, mountains, and urban areas, infantry is especially effective in the following types of missions: ------------------------------------------------- [ May 19, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

Yeah...keep that 'Tiger-Torch' going full-blast under his butt!. We want to have a game-of-fame here!.

Im not privy to what AP means (Armoured Personnel Vehicles?). Anyway...it shouldnt be too difficult to research your question on the NET...and compare Mechanized & Armoured units for movement & sustainability under-fire in enemy controlled areas as compared to regular Infantry formations...i can look when i can get to it. But...in short order i think the answer is 'FIRE-POWER'...Armoured Units(Being Armoured doesn't hurt either) that have more 'FIRE-POWER'...will have better survivability because of their ability to prevent the enemy from damaging them as much, and as well great 'FIRE-POWER'...will assist in keeping the enemy off-balance...there-by ensuring the survivability of the Armoured Unit over the Mechanized or Basic Infantry Formation. The reason why the Germans couldnt produce large numbers of Tanks like the Americans & Russians did...is because the Americans & Russians used Mr. Fords concept of 'Mass-Production'-'Assembly Lines'. The producers of Tanks in Germany were before the war builders of Heavy Equipment and were used to building such equipment in small numbers using inefficient production and assembly-line techniques. Also German Tank Equipment was much more complex and took more time to produce...where-as for example the Russians had shoddy craftsmanship in their tanks and they were much more simple to build...thus took little time to build a tank. [ May 19, 2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

Yes...thats the way it should be!...it was that way in 'HEARTS OF IRON'...and i really liked that!. I think SC1...was made as a simple to play game...thats why i hesistated for quite a while before buying it. Your feature and other features were simplified in SC1 as much as possible...at the sacrifice of many historical situations and actualities. Looks like SC2 will be a much deeper game...and much more complex (YIPPIE!!!)...plus everyone here wants it that way...and rightly so...so we'll see a lot of complexity and exotic features...in this game!. In summary...i dont see why-not this suggestion of yours couldn't be accomodated!.