Paul 'Papa' Hausser
-
Posts
37 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Paul 'Papa' Hausser
-
-
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 go for strength 10, HQ like, non upgradable garrison unit. That will make it easier and still be historically correct.
I still think they should be a unit and not a city/resource upgrade. I suggest its icon to be one guard standing in front of a sentry-box.
Could you make a unit that only could be moved with strategic movement that includes cities, recourses and fortifications? If it’s doable we have a pretty neat solution.
I felt worried I stole your time for nothing, but this could be a game enhancer well worth the (hopefully little) extra time spent. /Paul
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
Hey Dave,
I think you've made your point here and let's try and remember that not everyone will necessarily agree. In the end this is still a game for many players who might want this type of option and in fairness, we did include the simulation of the A-Bomb in the Pacific Theater release so it is not entirely without foundation.
Hubert
Thanks for those words Hubert.
-
" ...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 mind my suggestion is as follows:
TT=Soft, ST=1, SL=2, SN=1, AP=2, SR=1, OR=-, SA=1*, TA=0, AA+BA=3**, NA+CA+UA=2***
RA=-, SD+TD+AD+BD+CD=0****, ND=0, UD=-, RM=-
*) If Corps is changed to 2 it would make sense. This will also make it possible to have a 1:2 ratio instead of a 1:3 ratio and therefore keep the increase of the overall number of units limited. Let’s say that out of 20 corps you remove 10 and add 20 divisions. That means SA 20*2=40 changed to 10*2+20*1=40. The total SA value will be the same.
**) I would prefer 2, but they can’t be weaker than partisans. Maybe partisans should be 2? It you choose 3, I think corps should be 5.
***) I would prefer 1, but they can’t be weaker than partisans. Maybe partisans should be 1?
****) If we want to profile it as a defense unit it should have 1 and - again - should it be weaker than a partisan unit?
I thought I could give a more clear answer, but after going thru the online GC manual page 157-159 this was the best I could provide. I hope it could be of any help or at least something to discuss around. /Paul
-
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
-
Hubert, please see my answer two reply’s above.
-
"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, armies and so on?
I need that info to be able to come with helpful answers. Spontaneously I feel that maybe the approach should be differently then what you suggested.
“For example in Weapons and Warfare Germany normally uses its Corps for this task and if I were to introduce Garrison units I would then prefer to lower their Corps builds to compensate, i.e. in Fall Weiss Germany can build 20 Corps and if let's say it could build 5 Garrison units then I would lower the Corps build to 15. This of course is just a general example of how I would prefer the math to be but it could also be something like 10 Garrison units and then only 10 Corps and so on.”
As I see it, garrison units attack values should be very limited and therefore only considered a defense unit. If you add defense units the “attack momentum” in the game will be slowed down. If you “compensate” only with lesser corps for instance, that in fact is a potential attack unit, you just worsen this effect.
I think instead you have to increase the overall attack values corresponding to little bit lesser then the added defense values. At the same time the number of corps should be lowered to reflect a balance in manpower.
I think in the German case that you could add six garrison units and remove two corps, thus a 3:1 ratio. After I’ve seen the statistics I’ll try to advice how to balance the overall attack/defense capability.
If it turns out to be too complicated we should consider the garrison more like a division with an attack value reflecting only its smaller size. In that case you can have a 3:1 or 2:1 ratio with just a small or no other overall attack value compensations.
This solution has the benefit of giving us a more versatile unit. It could play the role of a volkssturm/home defense/militia unit and so on. If added readiness and strength, it could potentially play the role of historically famous and/or significant divisions like Azul. I think we should choose this road.
Please remember that this is just my spontaneous view with no support in either statistics or simulated game play.
-
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 map and divisional units. I got my friends attention to this and to my posts at the Forum. For the third time we feel disappointed.
We don’t feel we need to support the game since WaW, because we’ve pointed out the need of garrison/divisional units so many times over the years with no success.
We can wait for a bigger European map and an a-bomb as well as a new organization system that includes divisions and still buy the game to support its development – again.
But we’ll not buy the game if it lacks a garrison/divisional unit, which are an absolutely necessary unit. We also feel that it should’ve been included a long time ago and the fact that it hasn’t feels a little bit nonchalant to us as players.
If it’s not included then GC is released, we’ll wait until it’s included in a patch or a mod as Hubert wrote. Otherwise we’ll wait to the next game in the series.
Sorry, but that is just how important a garrison/divisional unit is for realism as well as game play to us.
This text is supported by: Andreas, Chris, Eric, Gustav, Kristian, Raul, Richard and Vavra.
-
"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.
-
"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 force losing countries to capitulate.
-
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 this forum many years ago. It’s quite tiresome to hear diehard fans coming to the games defense no matter how correct and important the critics are.
That only leads to that the game doesn’t evolve as fast as it could and therefore became uninteresting for me and many other players.
Luckily, Hubert is more open minded and interested in constructive critic.
-
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 divisions. Germany had hundreds of these kind of divisions and they played an important strategically roll.
Thru the war they even outnumbered (!) the regular infantry and panzer divisions that made up corps and armies.
Also they were operating much more independent and often outside corps and armies organizations in contrast to regular divisions. That alone is a reason to add them to the game.
They’re as I see it the only important unit type missing in SC. To actually leave more than half of the German divisions/army out of the game is a serious mistake.
Best would be if you could transform weakened armies to full strength corps and weakened corps to full strength division. That would in many aspects be a good idea.
It could be used widely in scenarios and campaigns alike and would add to both realism and “flavor” for SCGC.
-
"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 time and binds enemy troops. This is the very reason the (in most cases useless) garrison unit existed to such a LARGE extent during WWII.
They just have to be distributed evenly among the warring sides. The option of having cities and forts left with no defense should not even be considered out of fears for "too much clutter for the map". Also it would make some islands and costal squares easier concurred then you the game designer are not forced to place whole corpses or armies there.
Please rethink this for the sake of the games need for basic realism.
-
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 time you attack it from the air. Maybe the tactical bomber could reduce a tank army to 60%, because tanks are more woundable for specialized air attacks.
2. You can NEVER lose 40% of your landing force if there is no opposition. 10-20% is maximum there the latter is in extreme combined weather and terrain conditions.
-
Thanks for your fast reply.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
“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 to something like Battle in Russia.”
I fully agree with PanzerMike
A new addition with a lager/correct division level European map with more unit types is something I would pay a lot for.
The addition “Patton Drives East” as it’s described is unfortunately, even thou I love this game, nothing I would pay for at all.
/Papa
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thx a lot for your scarily fast answer. :eek:
Just a question, does that mean we’ll have more unit slots then today?
Garrisons and A-bomb
in Strategic Command - GLOBAL CONFLICT
Posted
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. But only a unit can guard a costal square.
We don't want them to move around and clog the map or take part in attacks. BUT if they’re week enough and not upgradeable - who wants to move them around(if it’s not absolutely necessary like in Bills example) or attack with them(never)? They will only be useful for defense, if entrenched over time in the same place.
If Hubert chooses an upgrade it has to be visible on the city/recourses/fortification on the main map. In that case I suggest a hoisted country flag. Is that possible without too much work?