Jump to content

Paul 'Papa' Hausser

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul 'Papa' Hausser

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/07/1980


  • Occupation
  1. That you can't move a garrison unit then no train/rail is available is good and realistic, but blocking Panzer-korps is bad and unrealistic. Good point Bill! Unfortunately all recourses, fortifications and costal squares are not connected to the railway. Therefore they have to be able to move if Hubert choose to have a unit. Stacking is not an option, so we have to choose between a city/resources upgrade and a moveable garrison/week division. Both could be used as volkssturm/home guard then the heart land is threatened and both (right?) can protect cities, recourses and fortifications. B
  2. Hubert, I agree that even if a division unit is preferred for its future usability, it doesn’t add up with the current values. Changing them would be too time-consuming related to that we’ll achieve. Then I started this thread I said we couldn’t ignore over 50% of the divisions Germany had during the war. And I stand firm by that. BUT, even if they there classified as divisions, most of them acted as garrisons in cities and defense lines. They acted outside corps and armies, they were usually static, had the oldest equipment and lower manpower than normal divisions. I think we should
  3. Hubert, Maybe it should be like a HQ with the following exceptions: ST+SR=1, AA+BA=1 or 2, NA+CA+UA=1, SD+AD+BD+CD=1 and cost=60MMP If it's considered to be a garnison/fort unit it should maybe have better air and navy values (+1) and cost 75 MMPs.
  4. Dave 1) Naval Bomber It would be great, but it's not more important than a garrison/divisional unit. 2) Mechanized Isn’t that already included, like motorization level 2?
  5. Hubert What is your opinion then it comes to the partisan unit in relation to a divisional unit? Rannug Your suggestion is great for a pure garrison unit. Also, a partisan unit can be stronger then a garrison but not a division. But don’t you think a divisional would be more versatile?
  6. " ...their stats could hypothetically be of any value and it still wouldn't change their inability to attack." Then I suggest a divisional unit. Since Special Forces already exist, they can cover elite divisions like the German SS or US marine. That leaves us with ordinary divisions. Since we’re crippled somewhat then it comes to what values we can give this new unit, it will not be to exact. If a corps had a SA of 10 instead of 1 it would be different. That means the unit will be something ranging from a garrison unit thru volkssturm/home defense to a regular division. With that in min
  7. Hubert, I found the statistics on page123 in my old SC2 manual. Are those figures still valid? Also I’ve some more questions before I’ll come with my suggestions. Will you create a garrison type of unit or a divisional? Can a unit with 0 in SA even attack? HQ and transports can’t. If that’s the case we’re talking about a garrison unit. Please answer those questions and I think I’ve a pretty clear picture of how a garrison or division unit values should be. Thanks, Paul
  8. "I'd be willing to discuss it further if you are equally inclined." Thanks Hubert! If I can be to any help, I’ll do my very best. “I encourage your friends to participate as well in the discussion” I’ll also try to get some of my friends involved. “I guess my question to you is how you feel about the above type of adjustment if we were to introduce Garrison units and if you would approach it differently?” As I mentioned earlier I’ve not played the game since the Patton expansion was released, so I’ve forgotten the unit statistics. There can I read the values for corps, arm
  9. My friends and I bought several copies of SC2 then it came. Just like me, they did complain about the lack of a garrison/divisional unit. Still we bought WaW then it came, because we wanted to support the development effort. At the same time I wrote regularly at the Forum to share our concerns. Later then Patton and Pacific were released, still without a garrison/division unit, we gave up and didn’t even bother to buy the game anymore. I also left the Forum. I got very excited then I saw that GC was on its way, because a global campaign has always been a dream besides a bigger European
  10. "Dieppe or even D-Day" They took casualties because there were enemy units/divisions present. Now you can suffer losses even then you land in areas there no enemy would be present. Both these issues could be solved with the existence of Garrison/Static divisions/units.
  11. "The Luftwafffe had... ONE MILLION MEN... serving in the Fliegerabwehrkanonen. AKA: The "flak." I don't think we want 10-20 flak units RE-presented in this game, do we?" They are already in the game then you upgrade airdefences for cities. To compare them with over 100 land divisions is not even worth an answer. Can we please try to keep the discussion serious? Regarding a-bombs, of cause I never meant them to be a widely used unit in the game. Just a possibility if you put a lot of your research capacity on it. That would add a new “gambling” aspect to the game, be historical and
  12. First of all, no units on corps or armies levels can be rendered completely "combat ineffective" because of aerial bombings. Secondly there is not one single case I heard of there a corps or army have to reorganize in a city far away and change descriptions because of aerial attacks. Thirdly, doesn’t SC have combat readiness to reflect this? We’re talking strength here, were the actual number of soldiers and equipment is the most important component. And how about the absurd losses then you land at a costal square? What is you “explanations” to that? This was the reason we left th
  13. I fully understand Hubert's reasoning, but I still think a garrison unit is needed according to the reasons I mentioned earlier. There is also one more important aspect that makes the Garrison unit needed. It can also play the role as Volkssturm/Home Guard or equal weaker militia type units. Especially for Germany with it’s expanding territory it’s important. Germany was heavenly dependent on weaker formations as Sicherheits, Volkgranadier, reserve, training and different static costal, fortress and garrison divisions. Many were formed out of one or more destroyed armies, corps or divis
  • Create New...