Jump to content

mcaryf1

Members
  • Content Count

    364
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Actually the game engine can model nets and minefields. For example if you allow Finland to have a number of DD units with zero AP but good naval defensive values that can be strung across the Gulf of Finland then the Russians can be denied access to the Baltic until they have expended effort to destroy them or until they have knocked Finland out of the game. This then represents the actual anti-submarine nets and minefields that were really deployed. If USSR has some sub units located inside this blockade then they cannot get out but they can prevent the Axis from making unrealistic amphib
  2. Hi Crispy Determining whether a ship is really located in a port has been rather complicated in Gold as there were not enough port locations so ships near a port are probably intended to be in a port but the game does not allow stacking. Thus I have tended to be fairly relaxed about allowing rebuilds in my Axis Triumphant scenario. It seems to turn out that it is more often reasonable than not allowing them is unreasonable from a historic perspective! If you examine the fate of battleships in particular in WW2 a significant number of them were sunk whilst in ports - Taranto, Pearl, Alexa
  3. I just want to comment on the earlier strike against the Italian fleet units that were effectively in port. This rather mirrored the actual raid on Taranto although of course that was when the countries were at war. The actual outcome of Taranto was that only one of the sunk/damaged Italian ships was not eventually refloated and repaired. I think it is a good idea for the game/scenario settings to match the reality of the Taranto and Pearl attacks by allowing naval ships sunk in port to be rebuilt at a fraction of the cost and delay of constructing new ships. Some reward for a sneak at
  4. I am interested that the Allies control the Baltic. Was there any restriction on access to the Baltic by ships and subs operating out of the Leningrad area? In the actual war the Germans and Finns constructing a barrier of anti-submarine netting and mines so that there was no access for the Soviets to the Baltic for a lot of the war. Regards Mike
  5. Hi Bill and abukede I guess I need to wait until I see the whole array of unit types, relative strengths and relative costs until I comment too deeply. Also I do realise that I am probably more interested in historic comparisons of weapon systems than I am in acheiving game balance so my point of view is not necessarily the same as most players. Regards Mike
  6. Thank you for posting the stats for the medium bomber, CVL etc. I guess there would be an argument for giving the CVL a single strike otherwise it seems to be at too much of an advantage in terms of MPP's invested as compared with a land based medium bomber. Thus players would have to deploy the units in pairs if they are to have a strike accompanied by an escort. I am also doubtful that a full blown CV should have better anti-land unit target stats as well as twice as many strikes as a medium bomber. I guess it depends how many aircraft you think a carrier unit includes as compared wit
  7. Hi Bill Thank you for your answer - I interpret it as meaning that differentiation is principally by means of tech levels rather than by adjusting the underlying unit characteristics for different countries. It does of course get very complicated to model historic advances by using tech levels as IJN carrier fighter advances after 1942 to improve defence, (e.g. armour to protect the pilot) actually resulted in reduced range due to increased weight. Regards Mike
  8. I was interested to see the comment that an Italian land based fighter unit would have stood no chance against RN carrier aircraft. In reality of course the RN carrier planes were extremely poor in air to air conflict and only had success at Taranto because they were night capable whilst the Italian planes could not operate at night. This brings me to a more general question about AOD - are all country units the same in terms of combat values, disregarding tech levels, or has there been any attempt to match the underlying units to country capability? Thus are Japanese carrier aircraft i
  9. I have to say that I do not like units which will not take losses when attacking as I think this is very artificial. All significant military formations from division upwards had integral artillery units available for counter battery fire. To allow a specific "artillery only" unit to act as an invulnerable attacker is not in my view correct and the "evasion" factor should be set at 50% maximum. The fact that the artillery unit is apparently many miles from the front line is a pure game convention because SC does not allow stacking. I would also suggest that a good way to distinguish betw
  10. Hi Al I understand why you have done what you have done re the Arctic theatre but I would not say the convoys had no effect especially at the moment in the UK when the Govt has just got round to awarding the men who fought in appalling conditions a campaign medal. The early Arctic convoys were actually the most important in terms of weapon systems carried which were used in the battles for Leningrad and Moscow. The later convoys by other routes were important in the context of trucks, trains, rolling stock and explosives but less so for weapon systems as the Soviets were producing their o
  11. This is getting better and better!! What might I ask is the airship unit likely to really be - might that be a spare aircraft slot? I see there is also a research slot for shell production - does that have an effect on rocket artillery in terms of numbers of shells or is it an attack modifier on artillery type weapons? You have not previously used the AA unit in standard scenarios. Personally I find it quite useful for the AI to use as otherwise its Fighters can get squandered particularly if it plays the USSR. Regards Mike
  12. This all looks very exciting - I have been playing around with Division sized units on the previous standard map for SC GC and it does work but is rather crowded so this could be an ideal scale from my perspective. I used the special forces slot and I guess this is what you have done. I am interested to see that despite the larger map you have not included the Arctic so you do not have the campaign that really happened when the Germans tried to take Murmansk operating out of Norway and Finland. RAF fighters actually participated with RAF crews in the initial defense of Murmansk but fro
  13. I have been thinking about the future for Strategic Command and how Hubert and his colleagues can derive some further return on previous and future investments in the series. There are probably some useful tweaks that can be made to the current facilities but it might be hard to persuade existing users and potential future purchasers to spend additional money on relatively minor changes. One area where there might be some potential, although it would not appeal to all current users, would be to provide an add-on that offered a significant level of additional detail with respect to how unit
  14. This comment is a reply to a post made by Yuvuphys. As it was a few posts back I have extracted the issue and repeat it here: Convoy Raiding One of the principal damages of convoy raiding was not simply the loss of material, but the loss of shipping capacity. Next time the attacked convoy of ships moved goods, it would move fewer goods unless the sunk ships could be replaced. I think it would add an interesting dimension to the game if the throughput of a convoy route was reduced for several turns as the result of a raid, rather than just for the turn it was raided. Raiding these routes
  15. I may be a bit premature in making suggestions as I have only recently started with SCGC although I played SC a good few years ago. I have also only been playing Axis High Tide. However, please feel free to tell me if the idea could not work. I hope it is also relevant to all those of you already switched to Gold. My immediate impression is that the Arctic Convoy System is not very involving for the Allied player when in reality there were life and death decisions to be made. There is also not enough impact or realism as a relatively small number of MPPs get moved and they take a while
×
×
  • Create New...