teutonkopf

Hey Guys, back to reality for a minute here... There's lots of stuff that can be improved upon in SC-GC. I can name several major improvements just based on what we already know. Don't forget about these major deficiencies that have become "the elephant in the room". SC-GC II would: Have more major countries: France Italy Significant neutrals with the potential to be majors -- certainly not "minors": Spain (and its Latin American allies) Sweden Have Better graphics: Me109's that look like Me109's More Technologies: Nuclear Weapons More Resources: Oil tracking, e.g. Production, Reserves, Usage Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to knock a great game. However, the idea that there's no where to go after SC-GC is kinda shortsighted. Its got a long way to go, baby! I'm pretty sure this is the start of another thread topic, but I couldn't let the "nowhere to go from here" idea actually go unanswered... (not to mention that the endless back patting is also getting kinda sickening. LOL) v/r, teutonkopf fuhrer teutonicus

ad hoc user defined convoy routes should be in the game. when i get brazil to join the axis i need to be able to define a convoy route from brazil to axis portugal that i will protect with the high seas fleet i've built. historical ports need to be included to increase axis naval potential, eg. austro-hungarian ports in the adriatic such as Pola, and german ports on the north sea, eg. bremen/hanover. historical austro-hungarian ports can be at strength 0 or 1 and I can choose to build them up. cities, oil fields, mines, etc should also be able to be upgraded. if i want to send in german workers and invest resources to build up an occupied city then i should be able to regardless of the whiny little local nationals who have less than 100 percent occupation efficiency. if that means i have to occupy the resource with a Corps unit then fine. v/r, rootin' tueton

Ok, the notion of keeping it simple makes sense. There is a way to keep it simple, but make it more realistic and give more options to the player. Here is the idea: Only have 4 types of land units: Army Corps Paratroops Marines Paratroops and Marines are your special forces. Marines need to replace the current over generalized amphibious free-for-all nonsense.:mad: A tank corps making an amphibious landing? THAT NEVER HAPPENED.:confused: That never will happen. An Army making and amphibious assault? Please, give me a break. You cannot be serious.:eek: Now, back to reality: Marines are no bigger than corps sized. Armies and panzer corps can only land on beach heads already secured by marines. Paratroops are the same, except they need to also have air mobile capability. They should be able to airlift into friendly and unoccupied areas without having to take jump casualties. They should also be able to suffer damage enroute when they parachute or airlift. Enemy fighters can make an attack on them and friendly fighters can fly an escort mission. There is no way fallschirmjagers are going to land in Britain without Air Supremacy. Get real. Now, here is the very interesting part. Armies and Corps have all the attributes: Infantry Engineers AT Tanks AA Arty Motorization You adjust the values how you want to. Give it alot of tank points and there is your panzer army. Yes, you can create a panzer army if you have the cash. Give it alot of Arty and there is your artillery army if thats what you want. (Oh, and by the way, Artillery does not have a range beyond neighboring hexes. Are you for real? The Paris Gun was never built, much less an artillery battalion of them.) This simulates mixing, adding, subtracting and all the funky jazz that the major and minor powers did and that you could do as supreme commander. Pretty cool, huh? I like it! So this would apply to paratroops and marines, but they would have less options and limited values on some options: Paratroops: Infantry weapons Engineers (make the whole unit airborne engineers if you have that cash. Its your money!) Limited AT Limited Arty Limited AA NO Tanks Marines: Infantry weapons Engineers AT Arty AA Limited Tanks v/r, tk

Attached Battalions can also be transferrable to other units. If two units are not in contact with enemy units, then they can switch their attached battalions with eachother regardless of distance. This requires operational movement MPPs. If two units border enemy units and they border eachother, then they can transfer battalions to eachother. In both cases it does not have to be a 1 for 1 swap. A unit can give another unit its battalion as long as the receiving unit does not already have a battalion of that type, e.g. my infantry unit can give its tank battalion and engineer battalion to a tank unit that only has an arty batallion. Given this capability, keeping track of mobile armoured versions of batallions for tank units and softskinned motorized versions for infantry units might be too complicated. This can be simplified by adjusting transfer cost. Transferring battalions from infantry to infantry or from tank to tank costs the regular amount. Transferring from infantry to tank costs more, and transferring from tank to infantry costs less. v/r, tk

Attaching brigades and battalions is a good idea. Normally, an infantry unit does not have tanks. However, if you attach a tank battalion to it then that will give the unit 2 strikes. The first strike is the tank battallion spearhead supported by organic artillery (the units arty value) with infantry cover against enemy infantry. This simulates the tanks making a breakthru. The second strike is the infantry follow-up. Now that is a cool simulation of real tactics. This way, you can attach high level heavy tank battalions to infantry units which simulate the german heavy tank battalions. This gives the unit the ability to counter attacking tank units. The other battalion attachments like arty, AT, AA, Engineers are obvious. I wanted to point out that attaching tank battalions would also be realistic and cool. It gives you the ability to deploy high level heavy tanks against lower level tanks without having to buy an entire tank unit. I guess a tank unit is supposed to be a panzerkorps or something. For the russians I guess it's supposed to be tank armies. Tank units need to be scalable to represent the actual war. There should be Tank Armies, Tank Corps, and Tank Battalions. Tank Armies and Corps would be separate units like the thier infantry counterparts and Tank Battalions would be attached to other units. You can even attach heavy tanks to an existing tank unit to give it even more power. On the other hand, you can attach infantry battalions to tank units to give the tanks more defense against enemy infantry. This is a way to achieve the realistic effects of unit stacking without actually having to stack units. Tanks only or Infantry Only in a hex is too limiting. It does not match the scale. v/r, tk

Here is how you can do combat engineers: allow me to allocate Corps of Engineers points to land units like HQ's, Corps, Armies, Tanks. This will give those units improvements like this: increased attack values against fortifications (abstraction of demolitions) increased ability to defend cities (abstraction of barricades, improved positions, etc.) increased defensive values (abstraction of mines, obstacles, etc.). Again, an actual engineer unit is silly. Combat Engineers or Pioneers do not take up a whole hex and should help a unit occupy a hex, NOT get in the way by taking up the whole hex with the puny combat power of an engineer battalion or brigade or whatever they are supposed to be. :confused: v/r, tk

I don't quite understand the need for an engineer unit. They don't make much sense. I should just be able to click on a tile and select to build something on it without needing an engineer unit sitting on it, or any unit for that matter. If the tile does not border an enemy controlled tile then I do not need combat engineers. In reality, civilians did all that work, and the military engineers overseeing the work certainly did not amount to a unit represented on a global map. If you bomb the tile while I'm building on it then it will mess up my construction time. You don't have to destroy an engineer unit. Engineers can be abstracted as Corps of Engineers Strength. I can focus those points on one tile and build something really quick or spread them around and take my sweet time. When the construction tile gets bombed then I lose Corps of Engineers points and have to replenish them. Don't make me have a globe trotting engineer unit that can only build one thing at a time. That's just plain silly. v/r, tk

Arty, AT, and AA should also be upgradeable attributes on panzer units. They would be more expensive because they would all have to be mobile armored version, e.g. Hummels for Arty, StuGs for AT, etc. Arty would increase soft attack. AT would increase tank defense. AA would increase air defense. The reason you would have AT for a panzer unit is because it would be cheaper than elite reinforcements or advanced tanks but still be a way to counter enemy armor. This would simulate the germans' shift to higher AT production as they shifted to a defensive war and demands for increased numbers of armour with limited manufacturing capability. v/r, tk

What do the convoy ship sillouhettes mean? :confused: They look cool, but I'm not sure what they do. :cool: They're not just by the ports in the screenshot. v/r, tk

It would be cool to be able to cherry pick experience points from your units and reallocate them to specific units. The germans did this a lot in WWII. This way elite units can be formed like the Herman Goering, Grossdeutschland, JV44, etc. This could be a way to emulate small unit leader assignments without actually having tactical HQ units. v/r, tk

Radar Stations are a balanced element in this manner: The guy with the radar stations is able to intercept a single enemy air unit with MULTIPLE units of his own like the British did. Of course, it also increases the effectiveness of a single unit. The guy flying against the radar stations can destroy them. This reduces the effectiveness of enemy interceptors. Much more, doing so GREATLY reduces the effectiveness of defenders when the attacker has a very short time to target like the germans attacking southern Britain, eastern France, Holland, western Russia, etc. v/r, Teutonkopf, aka "the Rootin' Teuton"

China? Oh, REALLY!?!? Is this an attempt to sell more copies of SC2 in China? I would say that a country that has historical build limits of Corps=100 and Everything Else=0, and a tech ladder of max research=1 would hardly be a candidate for a major power. There is no "what if" capability with China. :confused: France, on the other hand, has huge "what if" potential. What if France concentrated its tanks? What if France attacked Germany during Fall Weiss? What if the French Govt fled to Toronto? What if France accepted Churchill's offer to unite with England? Ok, then you would have a single UK-France Major. Now that would be a cool CHOICE. Dont' force it on us! :mad: If you're going to make China a major that's fine. You can't really have Japanese yang without Chinese yin. On the same token you can't have German yang without French yin. If you're going to make China a major then you need to make France a major and you need to make Italy a major. Italy actually developed jet technology and naval power. Their air force was capable but the leadership was incompetent. The What If potential of Italy is equal or greater to that of China. What if Italy did not declare war on britain, but dedicated its entire forces to fight Russia? Now, that is a game changer! :eek: What if China dedicated its entire forces to fight Japan? Well, it did, and it didn't amount to much. What if China dedicated its entire force to fight Japan? Oh, wait, I already said that. Not many options here, folks. Haven't you seen that Jet Li movie Kiss of the Dragon? Well, I talked to that French Police Captain from the movie, and he is really, REALLY, not happy with your decision to make France a minor and China a major! I wouldn't make any promotional tours in Paris if I were you... What I would be worried about is any stops in the NY, NJ area. I talked to Tony Soprano and he said, "About that SC2 Italy thing -- FUGGEDDABOUTIT!" v/r, tk

Ground unit modes make sense. Scorched Earth would also be a cool ground unit mode in addition to regular "flee". Partisan modes are the answer to the "surreal" behaviour of current partisan units. Zones of Control sound interesting for navies. Could you please elaborate on the rules of how this would be implemented. Why not add ZOC to land units and air units. It makes sense for them too. Green Troops are experience ZERO are they not? That's already represented in the game. Germans had green troops also at the end of the war. Russian fanatics are just green troops (experience ZERO) set to mode "fight to the death" (To Death). That would be represented by adding modes. Well, it wouldn't totally reflect the Russian Human Minesweepers or Japanese Bonzai Charges so this could be a special attribute... How about this: Add Special Attributes to HQ units. Bonzai/Kamikaze would be for Japanese. Commisars/Purges would be for Russians. Leonides/Hitlerjugend would be for Germans. Never Surrender/The Few would be for the British. Uncommon Valor/Nuts would be for Americans. These attributes would have varying percentages. The Japanese and Russian definitely were more suicidal than the West. It would be more historical. This is an alternative to special units. Just as most of those special units were really just green troops with "fight to death" mode, the SS were just experienced troops with "fight to death" mode. The difference is that their chances of disobeying are lower than other units. This could be represented by a HQ technology called "Ideological Units" or something along those lines. Their numbers would be limited somehow. Maybe in the nation settings or unit build settings. These are good ideas, but the modes and special units seem to overlap... What about cherry picking. What about the ability to redistribute experience among units. In this manner you could create a Herman Goering or Grossdeutschland if you wanted to or Marine Raiders. That would be very interesting indeed... v/r, tkj fuhrer-T d. t-dogs

In SC2 I have no way of destroying british radar capability. However, in the real Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe had the choice to destroy them, and nearly did. I'd like to have the choice to destroy them. The current SC2 does not allow me to target the enemy's radar. This was not isolated to the Battle of Britain. It was a key American strategy in Desert Storm. v/r, tk

@xwormwood: Teufel Hunden is the product of American propaganda and Marine Corps legend. I never bothered researching it's grammar. I see know that it is not grammatically correct german, but hey, what can you expect from the press of a germanophobic WWI America where you were required to kiss the flag in the town square if you were caught speaking german? :confused: The American story is that the germans described the attacking Marines as the "hounds of hell" during the Battle of Belleau Wood in World War ONE. Totenkopf it is. My attempt at the "oe" representation of an umlaut "o" seems to have been misplaced. Now that reminds me of another german word that is part of modern Marine vocabulary: Kopfjager. It is used by the Marine Sniper community and can be found posted at Marine Sniper School. My Sergeant called me "Kopfjager" after I put a .223 M-16 round right between the eyes of a head and torso target from the 500 yard line with iron sights in the prone position. :cool: I assume it also comes from World War One when Marines fought germans. Hey, that gives me an idea for another pun: Teutonkopfjager. v/r, Teutonkopfjager Fuhrer Teutonicus der "Teutonhunden"