Rolend

Ummmm DD what ever it is your taking I sugest you lower the dose Or at least share with the rest of us LOL

DD I would love to take credit for this idea as I think it is one of the better and simpler ideas I have seen posted to fix a problem in SC 2, but alas it is not my idea, most of mine are way to complex and not doable. This idea was first presented by Liam, or at least he was the first I saw present it.

Lars I am not saying it is technically correct but if the change makes sub warfare a little more historical, and makes ASW and sub tech more important then it serves the purpose. Besides what we are arguing here is really tactical not strategic and it is always very hard to make a strategic based game accurate on the tactical side, compromises have to be made sometimes.

EXACTLY the point! Lower a U-boats attack power and raise it's ability to dive, that alone would change how sub warfare is played out in SC2. I also think that U-boats taking damage when raiding convoys should be added, more realistic and forces the U-boats back to port for repairs.

How many of those ships sunk by U-boats were part of a convoy? At least 2 of the carriers. How many of the total U-boats sunk were done in or near convoys? The part I find just so out of place is how German surface and U-boats work together to hunt RN surface fleets and also the other way around. When in reality the VAST majority of U-boat actions both offensive and defensive were around convoys. With WWII tecnology it was darn near impossible to find a loan U-baot in the vastness of the Atlantic, you found them hunting the shipping lanes. I side with Liam on this one, I think it would be a fairly easy change to make. Make the attack power of U-boats lower and their dive ability higher. I would also make the U-boats take damage when they raid convoys, the damge they do to MPP and the damage they take can be based on the sub tech and the ASW tech. I would also allow the allies to asign ships to convoy duty, which would raise the damage the U-boats take when hitting convoys and lessen the hit on MPP based of course on ASW and Sub tech. Also those ships asigned to convoy duty would be taken off map, you could make asignment changes at the begining of every turn. [ May 19, 2006, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

I assume that if a sub disrupts supply say by 15 MPP that the 15 MPP is totally lost, it does not revert back to the sender, it is at the bottem of the ocean Anyway if the Germans get control of the North Atlantic and is disrupting most of the MPP going to Russia wouldn't it be better to just shut down transfer so the MPP won't be lost? Or am I missing something?

THANKS HC for the reply, sounds like that first patch is going to be killer, with a few of the bugs fixed and the scripts tweaked this already killer game is going to be that much more fun. THANKS for your hard work and continued support of not only the game but these forums. You don't see that very offten from a game maker. @Panzerkeil Thanks I knew it I just could not remember his name, siggghhhh like so many other things that go with old age so is my memory

Does the Allies have about twice the MPP as the Axis? With the russians already pusing hard on the Germans and the huge one sided MPP I don't see how the Axis can pull it off.

Geee who will be next, Greece, Turkey? me thinks Stalin is attack happy lol

There is NO doubt that simple fixes like this as well as the script allowing the AI US to invade France will make this game a LOT more competetive and I look forward to that patch

@Stalin LOL what a sight that would of been to see that throw together invasion fleet aproaching England. I wonder how many would of made it half way acorss the chanel before the RAF and the RN would of sent them to the bottem. I mean most of those craft could of been sunk simply by a Spitfire doing a strafing run. Had Hitler tried it I am not sure he would of recovered from the disater.

Liam I like your idea of lowering a subs attack and upping thier diving ability, this would make them much more efffecive stratgic weapon as they were in real life. Also I do belive that surface ships should be able to interfer with convoys. I had one game, playing as the Germans, where I had for the most part destoryed the RN, I had all 3 subs and 4 German surface ships in the Russian convoy area and only reduced convoy MPP by about 20 per turn. In real life if that kind of force ahd been present I don't think any convoy would of made it to Russia.

The strange part of all this is that at the start of the war Germany only had like 25 or 30 U-Boats operating in the convoy lanes and were just chewing up shipping, had they had the 300+ subs Karl Doenitz wanted just think what they could of done. After The German service fleet was rendered useless and Germany focused on U-boats it was to late as ASW was getting better and America had joined in the war. What is strange about this relates to the game, for the most part it seems Germany just does not have the MPP to build more subs so if they lose their starting subs that part of the war is finished. I think Germany should be given more free subs later in the game just as I think the US should be given another free bomber and a couple of air fleets.

@Barcelona Yep I tend to agree that damage to German industry and moral was not all that good compared to the losses both the RAF and US air forces suffered. However I don't think you can under state the effect it had on German infrastructure as rail, road and bridges slowed transportation of needed reinforcements and supplies to both fronts. Not to mention that by the time of D-Day the Luftwaffe was totally decimated by the defense against strategic bombing. To say that strategic bombing was a failure just because it did not have much effect on German industry is wrong, after all how much more industry and war making ability could Germany of had if they didn’t have to deal with strategic bombing at all? Strategic bombing effected how Germany could conduct the war in both the East and the West and if you look at the big picture I believe that strategic bombing was a success. A war winner? No but certainly it played a large roll.

Speaking of Paratroops with hardcaps why is the U.S. only alowed to build 1 uint didn't they have 3 by the time of D-Day?

Should not the Russian winter freeze over those marshes making them passable? Just asking I have no clue. EDIT ADDED: For that matter should not that lake N of Lenigrad be forzen over in the winter alowing it to be crossed?

rleete that is not a bad idea, have them come out low level and low strength, I wonder can we do that with the editor? I will have to check tonight when I get home.

The thing is DD that is EXACTLY what Germany would of had to do, risk everything, to pull it off. There did not seem to be a big enough pay off for that risk, after all they considered England out of the war any way. The Germans figured on taking out Russia in the first year, so what was left of England was a minor problem to them. Had they seen how Russia was going to play out then maybe they go all out against England, take N Africa and force England out of the war. Of course delaying the attack on Russia by a year would not of helped either. Lets face it, their only real hope was to try and keep France and England from coming into the war when they invaded Poland thus allowing Hitler to invade Russia in 40. If only Poland had not been in the way of what Hitler realy wanted LOL.

If I wanted to add a 'free' bomber and or fighter to the US how could I balance this to keep it from becoming really one sided? Maybe give Germany a free level of AA?

Yep navy power and its use is just under played in SC 2. It seems to do a fine job with most everything else but navy power and amphib opps seem to need some work.

Sounds like Stalin is in a bit of a pinch, why even bother with Norway? Stalin must have somthing up is sleave

Had England fallen then how much longer tell Egypt falls??? Makes no since to move your capital to Egypt just to have to move it again in a couple of months. Now maybe for game playability sure but to be honest I would rather see England out of the war rather then moving the capital, maybe even some kind of 'Vichi England.' I also agree with Axis_General about the Russian capital being moved to Stalingrad, if I remember right they were getting ready to move the capital to some city in the Urals as the germans were getting close, that was before Stalin decided to bring in the Siberan troops and make a stand.

Ok I 'turned it on' last night and now I am much happier. One note it is not a game option you have to go into the editor and change it there

I am not so sure how gamey it really is. I mean both the French and the English could of walked into Germany while they were still in Poland, the Germans had NO armor at all in the west. So what did they do with this advantage? Nothing and that is why they call it the phoney war. To be honest I don't think England or France really wanted a war with Germany and had Hitler really turned his focus to the east and Russia a year earlyer I am not convinced they would of done any more then they had when Germany was in Poland. So I play this as a 'what if' type of game. Actully having Romania, Hungary and Finland in the war would of been over kill but had Italy joined it would of made my task MUCH harder as there would of been no way they could of fought off England and France on their norhtern border or in N. Africa so I would of had to divert a lot of units that I used to roll Russia. As for the Siberian troops I disagre with you. Even in late 41 when things looked really bad for Russia Stalin didn't want to pull those troops out and use them at Moscow because he was sure he would then have to fight a two front war, something Russia just could not manage. His spy master, sorry forget his name, reasurred Stalin that it would be ok because by that time the Japanese were fully into their up coming pacific war with England and the U.S. Lastly I was not really complaining, just pointing this out for the people who do scripting and for the game makers. Yes a real person would of kicked my butt for doing that and I would like to see the AI a bit better so it too would kick my butt which really shouldn't be that hard as I suck LOL.

Last night I decided to try something different with the 39 campaign game. I took the Germans and right after the fall of Poland I took out Denmark. I then just left enough troops on the Siegfried Line for defense and I sent out my subs and navy to harass the RN and disrupt convoys. I then declared war on Russia in early 40. The strange part was how the AI reacted. First the French and English just kept hitting the Siegfried Line every turn not doing any real damage. Next Italy, Hungary, Romania and Finland did not join me even though I was easily rolling over Russia. They all stayed totally out of the war. Then in late 40 as I was on the verge of taking Moscow it committed the Siberian Troops. This should NEVER be allowed to happen before late 41 as those troops were needed against several skirmishes with the Japanese in Manchuria and had the Russians pulled those troops out the Japanese, not yet focused in on the U.S. would surly have made a big push into Russia. Once I finished off the Russians by mid 41 I quit the game as I figured it was a done deal. It was fun for a change but I do think the scripts need some tweaking for players who like to take different approaches to the game as I did. Yes I know you will say that I can tweak them but I am not much for that, not very good at it, I would just make things worse LOL.