Jump to content

Paul 'Papa' Hausser

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paul 'Papa' Hausser

  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
  14. "Garrison units in general can always be included but since it is generally a numbers game something else would have to give." I don't agree at all, because Garrisons are not a “weak” corps. It’s a specialized unit only able to defend cities and some defense positions like larger forts. It doesn’t even have to move outside the strategically/rail and sea transport system. It’s disturbingly unrealistic then you can just walk into the enemy cities or i.e. the fortified squares in North Africa because the player or AI is forced to prioritize another city. Even if it’s week it gives you t
  15. I remembered that one of the things that contributed to me stop playing SC was the unrealistic heavy losses. Upgraded units slaughtered each other. I was happy to read that it should be fixed this time. But still two utterly unrealistic issues remains and must be fixed for me to be interested in playing the game and more importantly get anyone of my friends to play buy and play it with me. 1. You can NOT strife or bomb away a whole army. The casualties must be minimized in GC and you should never be able to bomb it lover then let’s say 80% of its pre turn strength. No matter how many
  16. My dream has always been a Global SC on divisional level and a map big enough to take the tactical advantage of it. It should be possible to form corps and armies with them. If it’s necessary of programming reasons to have corps and army shells containing let’s say 1-3 divisions and 1-3 corps I would have no problems with that whatsoever. It would also be a simple managed and unique concept with compared with other WWII games out there. What is the current ideas and planes regarding this?
  17. I missed many units in the original SC, but it has improved over time. Still I miss two units. Garrisons is an absolute necessary unit in a game like this. Historically no side almost never garrisoned a City with corps or armies. They could also be named Militias/Volkssturm/Home defense, but the best would be to have them both. A-bomb I remember was a wish many years ago, both as a research option as well as an unit. Will Global Conflict feature any of these units?
  18. Before I was a big fan of SC, but I got disappointed with the add-ons. The main reason was that the European map remained too small with too few squares. In my opinion that limited the tactical options for the player. So my question now is: Will the European map in Global Conflict be bigger with more squares, cities and so on in each country?
  19. “Hubert, we want a FALL WEISS with smaller map scale!” I fully agree with Hosch “Unfortunately your scenario is not the right map-size for corps. You need to enlarge it approximately 1.5 times to get it right.” I fully agree with Kuniworth “In particular it is distorted: elongated in the N-S direction, not so elongated in the E-W.” I fully agree with John DiFool the 2nd “Yes, your Battle in Russia scenario truly is a gem. In fact, it is about the only scenario I have played extensively. The scale of Fall Weiss is not to my liking. So I agree with Honch, the scale should be changed
  20. Funks I fully agree with you. I would much more prefer historical conflicts like the ones you mention. And again, I think a lot can be done to the 1939 “Fall Weiss” campaign. It needs a bigger map to be at its full potential and that map size of the new expansion may just be the right one. Also, as already mentioned, a 1936 and or 1938 campaign would have very high replay ability. One reason will be the freedom you’ll have to form your forces before 1939. I really believe that a campaign like that could be “THE CAMPAIGN” in SC2 or dare I say SC3.
  21. JP Wagner Sometimes it’s better NOT to post. First of all I didn’t complain. I said I was disappointed then the things didn’t turn out as I wrongly expected. I’ve the historical knowledge, but I’m not good/fast then it comes to the “programming” part. That’s also the reason I suggested that I could team up with someone that does that better. SeaMonkey Yeah, I’m afraid your conclusion is the correct one.
  22. Thx a lot for your scarily fast answer. :eek: Just a question, does that mean we’ll have more unit slots then today?
  • Create New...