Special Forces

[Amadeus]

What I find in need of improvement is that Special Forces could always be transported amphibiously but could not be normal transported when there is only little supply.

[Big Al]

Costs more to pull guys off of a portless beach.

[Amadeus]

Yes, that is the problem. If Special Forces could leave a beach by amphibious transport why they could not by a normal transport? The organizational expense should be lower. That has to be fixed in my point of view.

[SeaMonkey]

Simply because normal transport cannot navigate shallow waters is why there is a need for the specialized vehicles represented in amphibious operations. Amadeus, there is a big difference when a cruise liner(ala Carnival) can come to a deep water port and embark units the size represented in SC and the assault that comes across beaches, reefs, underwater obstacles(manmade), etc that is initiated by Special forces and their accompanying assets.

As I have stated before, only SFs and a number of corps equal to the amphibious tech level of the owning nation should be allowed to conduct the amphibious assault as featured in SC. It is absolutely ludicrous to think that numerous amphib forces could sail leisurely around the SC map and conduct amphibious assaults as now is represented by the SC engine.

[SeaMonkey]

And while I'm on the "the rant", you know what else I find fricken ridiculous? Land based air's complete ineffectiveness against naval units. While I can see LB air sustaining losses, especially against naval units with teched up anti-air, I'm am completely dumbfounded when LB air attacks naval units and fail to get any strength losses against said units.

Anyone ever heard of the "Repulse" and the "Prince of Wales"? The whole island hopping campaign of the Pacific, especially the SW Pac, was about LB air being the key to power projection and dominance over specific regions of conflict. Any surface naval units foolish enough to invade a prominant LB air's operational radius was asking to be vanquished, well...at least in daylight, not this anemic SC crap of all powerful surface units sailing around bombarding any unit within their reach.

[Amadeus]

I don't know what "the rant" is, sorry (no native speaker). But it sounds a bit angry. OK, I am a bit different in my point of view. There are some abstractions in the game and they must be. I watch the game first of it's playability and second on realism. And I am happy that this is the method Hubert and Bill did and do. Anyway I am not a developer.

Regarding my position about the SF: I guess if SF could prepare for an assault (maybe in shallow waters) they must also could prepare for a transport. The unit, its dimension, is the same and amphibious transports seems to me a bit more complicated.

About land based Aircraft I agree that these unit are too weak.

[mcaryf1]

Hi SeaMonkey

I think you also have to consider the scale used in SC. There are for example far too few ports on the British Southern coast even in larger scale versions of the map because they would block a lot of the English Channel if they were represented. Thus it is reasonable to allow SC units to embark as amphibious units even when there are no indicated ports. In my usual games I convert SC to Division size so of course they would in reality need a port but in my view it can be a virtual port just not represented on the scale.

Regards

Mike

[Big Al]

You can always modify the units yourself. I modified bombers in BF1939 to be way more effective vs naval units.

[Big Al]

Addressing land based air vs naval.

If you look at that situation in history a land based air units should obliterate any naval unit. Now considering things like experienced naval search (which CV pilots had and trained far more than land based pilots) spotting and engagement you have to adjust the variables.

AoC/AoD planes have a higher default value.

TACs 4 CV/nav attack 4 defense

MED 2 CV/nav attack 3 defense

STR 1 CV/nav attack 1 defense

[SeaMonkey]

An understandable position Mike, about the lack of real port representations, but that should be for the map designers to fix. I'm more in favor of the limited amphib mission as it was in the Pacific and also in the European theater.

I believe I've stated before that an additional feature for the engineer unit could replicate the ability to have a mobile port capability, sort of like the Mulberries. I don't see why(for SC3) engineer units couldn't build ports(limited capacity according to build times), air bases, extend roads and rails, etc, just like they accomplish fortifications presently.

In addition, the number of engineer units should be coupled to the level of a country's "infrastructure' tech, showing the dedication and allocation of resources needed for those extensive operations.

Perhaps in the present SC structure we could see an engineer unit assist a non SF unit an amphibious capability by being adjacent to the unit without the port requirement.

[mcaryf1]

Hi SeaMonkey

I cannot comment on how easy or difficult your suggestions might be to implement with respect to enginners building ports etc. However, I have experimented with giving engineers one additional capability and that is the ability to clear mined ports and that works fine. I use zero AP DD units from minor countries with quite high evasion factors to simulate minefields. I also somewhat reduce the attack values of land units versus naval with the exception of engineers whose attack I increase. I also give engineers a two strike capability to offset the high evasion of the minefield but I somewhat reduce their attacks against other land units to offset the extra strike. I have found that this works quite well although of course the AI does not understand it. As a work around for the AI, I sometimes give it a free or low cost engineer unit in an area where the AI might find a lot of mines such as the Axis capturing Alexandria or the Allies capturing Nantes.

Regards

Mike