Shawn Posted July 21, 2002 Share Posted July 21, 2002 Is there any provision in the full version for LL? It would be a shame to not be able to transfer some points to the Sov's so they can build up some troops. Also is there any reason why you can't disband fleets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 No lend lease, and the disbanding of naval units would lead to abuse of the returned MPP's and most likely be considered gamey. Most people it seems are not big fans of gamey strategies Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvercloud Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Why can't you allow disbanding of fleets? You could at least allow sinking off of them... I don't always need the points back. When that sub is back to 1, I might prefer to sink it off in the atlantic instead of bringing it back in to repair. Also there's no reason why you couldnt say that boats can be disbanded just as tanks can, as long as the AI is competent enough or you make a penalty (option) available for disbanding boats. I'd suggest 3 options added to the game 1. Disband boats as usual with land units, though points are only recovered in friendly harbours (more in own, less in ally) 2. Disband boats at 50% of land units (to prevent gamey strategies) 3. No disbanding of boats at all Please consider this for a patch Hubert, as I have seen many more people that would like to see some form of Disbanding boats in the game Silvercloud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 No disbanding of boats. There is no historical jsutification for it, unless you make it so that youg et nothing back. You can't turn the Bismarck into Tigers. Just doesn't work. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvercloud Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 You can turn tanks into airplanes then? I wouldn't think you could back in WW2, I think the whole disbanding option is to allow for troop redeployment (eg tank crew retrained as plane crew). The same should be possible for ships (e.g. carrier crew retrained as plane crew)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arax3 Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 The time and expense of building a capital ship is not the same as parking a tank or landing a plane to use its crew for another mission. This would be nonsensical! A3 :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 The only one I will probably consider (as Jeff has suggested) is to allow disbanding without return MPP's. I know that does not sound entirely correct, but it will allow the disbanding without abuse. If everyone likes this I can do that. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 You could at least allow sinking off of them... I think this is probably the best idea, a disband without return MPP as suggested. It at least gives you the option to clean up the board if you like and not abuse the feature. I know that it would be nice to get a return MPP base from disbanding even naval units but for scenarios like the 1939/1940 campaigns it would definitly throw out the balance if the Allied player started disbanding the French navy. What do you think? Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyguy Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 My two cents is there should be a nominal MPP for boat disbanding. You would have extremely well trained and professional crews, who could be diverted somewhere else in the war effort along with the support infrastructure to keep them afloat, but not without a re-investment in training and resources to do this. Afterall, the Russians did have naval infantry. And the scrap metal could be stockpiled and used somewhere over time, which I believe was done to a limited degree. I would vote for something like a 20% MMP return for a full strength unit, reflecting the value of trained crews and support personnel, scrap value of the ship, but reduced by the committment of resources needed to reposition the resources. A ship knocked down to 1 by combat would return only 2%, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 I would favor a small return if the ship is dismantled in a home-country port, say, at least 10-20% for scrap and manpower reassignment. Allies port? One half of that. Anywhere else, NADA. Forgot to address the French navy issue -- at 10% what would they get for the entire fleet? Maybe 200-250 MPPs? All they could buy would be an inexperienced Army that wouldn't last long -- they could do more damage with the intact fleet, in terms of sub-hunting or coastal bombardment or confronting the Italians, so IMO, I really do not think that would be a problem. [ July 22, 2002, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 I like the thought of disbanding, but am also concerned if there are either large MPP gains or none at all. You should get something back, at least scrap metal value. My suggestion is to only allow disbanding of ships that are at 50% or less in strength. Then, the returned MPP value should be about a third to a quarter of that. So a battleship, which normally costs 660 MPPs, at 50% would be 330. To disband it, you get between 110 and 83. To not allow disbanding until at 50% or less strength, removes the option of just abandoning the fleet entirely. You have to use them first. It simulates not being worth the cost of repair after battle damage, but limits gamey options. Edit: I'd make the same restrictions for home vs. allied ports as are now in for disbanding armies. i.e. 50% less return for not being in the home country. [ July 22, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: R_Leete ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvercloud Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 To not allow disbanding until at 50% or less strength, removes the option of just abandoning the fleet entirely. This seems unrealistic, as you should be able to disband fleets even at full strength. I would vote for something like a 20% MMP return for a full strength unit, reflecting the value of trained crews and support personnel, scrap value of the ship, but reduced by the committment of resources needed to reposition the resources. A ship knocked down to 1 by combat would return only 2%, however. This looks more like it, with only 20% returned and add to that only in port, it becomes so restrictive that no-one can effectively use it for a gamey strategy. Hubert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 OK I've come up with something that I think will work, I'll give out more specific details in the next batch of changes. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Wait! Wait! Let me get my 2 cents in! I think there should be a nominal return in MPPs for naval disbanding (20-35% or so). But that there should be a delay in receiving these MPPs (like 6 months to 1 year). The purchase of naval units is abstracted, i.e you have to assume you've been building them for a while. But this is harder to do for naval disbandment - the game would actually have to create the delay in MPP returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Another option available here is to simply modify the scenarios to reduce starting forces and make their MPPs available for what-ifs. We'll be able to do this ourselves with the editor. Then live with the choices you make during the game when deciding what to build. IMHO, disbanding units and getting some value should remain an option, but should be reserved for units that drop below 5 factors to prevent gamey abuses, and/or the value limited to 5 factors for larger units. And whatever % value is decided on should be delayed at least a turn. This should be a reasonable compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gredeker Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 I'm in favor of a small percentage of MPPs (maybe 10%) being available if a naval unit is disbanded in a friendly port. I'd also be in favor of allowing naval units to disband while at sea, with no MPPs being made available for such an action. Of course, the name of the command in that circumstance would have to be changed from "Disband" to "Scuttle". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 hate to resurrect this very old bag of bones from the closet hehe but just curious what we other newbies here thought about the inability of having Lend Lease in SC? I'd like for the US to ability give at least 25-30% of the their MPP to Russia and/or to Britain depending on the year. Lend Lease was pretty significant. [ January 10, 2003, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: Genghis ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 IRL if you have a quality individual/group, whether he is in a position to use his training or not, he usually will excel at whatever task he attempts. Resources are recyclable to some extent. Allow % MPP recovery for disbanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GroupNorth Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Disbanding ships for MPPs? What the? Every belligerent was trying so hard to preserve their ships. The only major ship that was 'disbanded' (I think) was the Graf Spee, which was scuttled in an Argentinian port somewhat early in the war. It was scuttled only because the Germans felt it was going to be sunk or captured. There was definitely no material return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Genghis: hate to resurrect this very old bag of bones from the closet hehe but just curious what we other newbies here thought about the inability of having Lend Lease in SC? Lend Lease was pretty significant.yep, it was. It is also handled abstractly in the game (in a way) The weak US production compared to the modest but still iverly powerful production of England and the monsterous economic powerhouse that is Russia IS the effects of lendlease, if you are willing to accept that. Otherwise, it's difficult to understand the points that Russia gets at start as it's still organizing its factories for war (and then diassembleing them in the first few months). IT's game balance to you and me, but in it's own way, it's lend-lease in the abstract. THis isn't spelled out one way of the other, but as an explanation, it's makes sense to me. Since it is a rationalization, your mileage may vary. [ January 10, 2003, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Compassion ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts