Thoughts on Strategic Command

[Edwin P.]

An elaboration on this idea

Standard Tank Group

SA (soft attack) - 4

TA (tank attack) - 5

AD (air defense) - 3

SD (soft defense) - 4

TD (tank defense) - 5

AP (action points) - 5

MPP Base Cost = 325

Heavy Tank Group - Requires Armor Tech Level 1 to build

SA (soft attack) - 4

TA (tank attack) - 7, really big guns

AD (air defense) - 4, thicker armor = better air defense

SD (soft defense) - 5

TD (tank defense) - 7, thicker armor

AP (action points) - 3, much slower

MPP Base Cost = 500

[ April 03, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin --

As always I think that's an excellent breakdown. It would make the game more realistic and more fun.

One problem is the Germans for example, organized their Tigers into battalion sized units or smaller and distributed them, usually where needed. Tactically the tried to funnel enemy tanks into the killer zones. It would be hard to reflect that in SC but your idea does it in a different way: assuming a heavy tank group is a normal tank unit built around the nucleus of heavies.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn

Thanks, I tried to do it in a way that stayed within the current game system.

The biggest issue with Heavy tanks is that small arms fire and attacks from lighter tanks just bounced off their armor. I saw on the history channel a short piece where one Tiger Tank destroyed about 20+ enemy tanks in a single engagement before it was disabled The problem was that the Allied light tanks had guns that were too light to penetrate its armor, and that the infantry weapons were not effective against it either.

[JerseyJohn]

Yes, I also saw that one -- it was excellent, they went into those funelling tactics of flaning the Tigers with medium tanks and the medium tanks with anti-tank batteries till the so oncoming enemy would move toward the center, to an even greater menace.

That's the area in which the French and Russians, with their fine tanks, always lost out to the Germans, they didn't develop a doctrine for their use -- which is another area we've discussed several times as a game concept.

I hope Hubert either adapts your idea or has something similar in SC2.

[Feldtrompeter]

Hi

You don't need a history channel to see Über-tanks destroy light tanks in dozens.

Buy CMBB/ CMAK and create your own scenario. And then lean back and watch ...

[JerseyJohn]

Feldtrompeter

A fine suggestion. I've got a bunch of tactical armor games going back to DOS -- enjoy them but somehow it hasn't been something I've gotten into. Which is strange, in the early seventies I was an AH PanzerBlitz fanatic.

[Edwin P.]

Of course, adding a heavy tank unit complicates the AI as it must have routines for dealing with and using these units.

Perhaps the strength/movement of these units should be greatly reduced (ie reduced more than normal) if they are not controlled by a HQ unit. For example - a heavy tank unit not supported by a HQ unit has its movement reduced by 1 from 3 to 2. This reflects the heavy dependence of these units on adequate fuel supplies and limits their use to areas where they can be adequately supplied.

[ April 03, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Feldtrompeter]

Hi Jersey

I stepped across SC because I bought CMBB. The CM series was a phantastic experience. But I do not have the patience anymore to set my orders properly after I played SC for a while ...

So currently I almost exclusivly play SC.

Yet, CM is a must. Never regretted buying it. Gives you a lot of insight into the cource of the war plus a feel for the units and combat itself.

Ok, back to the original topic.

Just wanted to give you a short brake ...

[JerseyJohn]

Greetings Feldtrompeter

Yeah, know the feeling, one thing about SC, it's the friendliest damn system going!

Down the road I'm thinking about getting CM but in terms of time it's hard, really impossible, to even play any SC, so I'll probably hold off till SC2 and make that the last wargame I'll get for a while.

Edwin

I hope Hubert catches that and picks up on it, it's a great idea -- you've really turned the heavy tank thought into something good. I don't think we'll see it in the game, but to me it's a perfect concept with the HQ refining it excellently.

[ April 04, 2004, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn,

Thanks, I am really looking forward to SC2 and what HC has added.

------------------------------------------------

Choices, Choices, Choices:

1 Heavy Tank Unit = 1 Standard Tank + 1 Corps = 2 Army Units = 1.25 Air Fleets = 4 Corps

or

5 Heavy Tanks = 5 Standard Tanks + 5 Corps = 10 Army Units = 6.25 Air Fleets = 20 Corps

[ April 03, 2004, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Ah, I think now you're hitting on another area we had fun with a long time back: stacking and/or combining/dividing units.

The idea was to be able to have things like specific weapons groups and put them in a hex to alter the make-up of the overall unit. -- A tank group would be altered by the types of armor it was composed of ... similar with artillery, aircraft types within an airfleet etc. ...

In the end the playability and anti-micromanagement movement won out. :mad:

Hi

Actually, I'm not advocating stacking or dividing units, etc.

I would like to see medium tank groups as a purchase item along with heavy tanks.

The medium tanks would be cheaper, and countries would be allowed to have more of them vs the heavy tank groups. Their stats would reflect their size, weight and firepower.

I would also like to see DDs as a purchase unit as well.

This keeps things simple and straight forward.

I don't want to change the game; only add to the gameplay, strategy and historical feel of the game.

[jon_j_rambo]

Interesting ideas.

[SeaMonkey]

Agreed, great idea, but let's take it a bit further, tweak it for simplicity sake, the SC way. I used to play a game, "Red Storm Rising" that enhanced combat units with the addition of an asset class. Whether it be additional artillery, heavy tanks, engineers, etc. etc. the addition was abstract and when it was selected by the owning player a little Star(blue=US, red=USSR) or an iron cross=german, union jack=UK etc. would appear in the upper righthand corner on the unit counter receiving the attachment. These assets were mobile and could be moved from unit to unit to enhance their combat abilities(movement penalty=hvy armor?) and were subject to destruction. Of course a MPP allocation(Tech level also) would be needed for their construction and to reattach to other units. This would have at least a twofold effect; first no additional unit would be needed and second you could create those "elite" units referred to in another thread. My apologies to the old timers as this is the second time I've made this suggestion.....hmm on second thought, I withdraw the apology as the "Old Timers" have probably forgotten.

[ April 04, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[SeaMonkey]

EEEE! My apologies JJ you did remember. I just read the last post on the second page.

[SeaMonkey]

And another thing guys, as I remember heavy tanks unsupported by other combat elements were sitting ducks when they were "buttoned up". IIRC a British soldier said he could take on a Tiger tank and win everytime. Since the turret was handcranked all he had to do was run around in circles, duck underneath the MGs, and the crew would finally collapse from exhaustion, nary a shot fired. Point being.... modeling certain types of combat vehicles, although fun, is unrealistic at the corps or group level.

[JerseyJohn]

Greetings SeaMonkey

"...heavy tanks unsupported by other combat elements were sitting ducks when they were 'buttoned up'."

Exactly. For numerous reasons no corps sized unit would be made up entirely of a single class of armor -- there would always be a mix and it would always be middle heavy late in the war and light heavy in it's early stages.

I like the Assets idea for numerous reasons, for one, it represents the HQ Reserve sending some battlions of heavy tanks to bolster a unit, not necessarily even an armored unit.

Regardless of panzer unit's assumed composition, it often turned into a mix of whatever was available, especially so after Kursk. I think the trick in SC would be to somehow represent all these things within Hubert's system, which may not be possible.

A lot of what we're discussing would be dealt with on a divisional or brigade level. Good ideas, but hard to emulate in corps and armies. The more so when they're uniform for each country and don't stack!

[Edwin P.]

On solution might be at allow the player to purchase and attach these asset classes at the time that a unit is produced. This would be the simplest solution.

Another might be to require that for an asset class to be moved that unit must be controlled by a HQ unit. This would prevent unrealistic reassignment of assets during the course of a campaign - as you would not assign an artillery unit to a corps one week and then move it to another corps two weeks later.

Example: Purchase Assets at time of Unit Construction. Player can assign a General and a Single Asset at time of Purchase to a unit.

Purchase Army: 250 MPP

Assign General? - Cost 50MPP (General gives the unit a random bonus/penalty - ie SD +1, AP -1, Readiness +10% -with a bonus more likely than a penalty.

Note: Cost to Remove A General is 50MPP!, except for the Russians who just shoot them.

Assign Asset (Select One) - Cost 50MPP

_ Engineer Unit - +2 Max Entrenchment

_ Artillery - +1 SD

_ Anti-Air - +1 AD

_ Rangers - Spotting Range +1

Purchase Cost: XXX

Purchase

[Shaka of Carthage]

I'm glad SeaMonkey brought up the "asset" concept, and between himself and JerseyJohn, explained it well. With that understanding, we can move straight to what I think we're missing.

SC already has the "asset" enhancement concept in place. Its called a tech level increase, specifically in this case, the Heavy Tank tech. But, as has been pointed out, its broken. And in SC's case, the "asset" goes to every unit, you don't move it around.

JerseyJohn is correct again, in that the distinction between heavy and medium that is being proposed is something that losses significance at the scale we are operating at. It makes sense that heavy tank units (usually battalions) are added to Corp and Army formations, which is what the "asset" system is representing. And as far as the medium tanks are concerned, all the initial light tanks being supplemented by mediums, then eventually replaced by mediums. But no Army ever replaced mediums wholly with heavies. The heavies were always a supplemental asset.

[SeaMonkey]

Damn it Shaka I'm gettin tired of saying "of course, your right", but you are again. I'll add one thing you did fail to mention, in an abstract way the HQ support in SC also could be perceived as those "assets" be assigned as support. Do we really want to complicate things by breaking it down to more specific decisions? If we could just delegate the units that are to be supported by the HQ and leave out the randomness, thats enough, really. Maybe those units supported could display a little, example: G for Guderian, in the upper righthand corner to show we chose them to be supported. And yes I know Guderian isn't in the game, but didn't he command Panzergruppe 2? That's the ticket.....more HQ choices, especially for........are you listening CVM....Finland. No not really.

[JerseyJohn]

"Damn it Shaka I'm gettin tired of saying "of course, your right"

SeaMonkey,

I'm so used to saying it, or at least thinking it, that the words have long ago settled into the subconscious!

[Skanvak]

Yes, we need an HQ for Finland (and roumania) and Canada (or make them English).

I think, along with some people here, that the heavy tank could not be display at the level of the game.

Though it is correct to say that heavytank have never replaced the medium tnak in WWII, one have to look at what was an heavy tank and what the tank become after WWII.

Today a MBT is bigger than a Tiger though still as mobile as the Panther (more in fact). The fact is that the Panther is a MBT. The Tiger is not really a MBT, it is closer to a wonderful Tankhunter. The main advantage a tank, as shown in the battle of france is not their ability to inflict damage but to move fast in ennemy territory. The Heavy tank of Tiger or Mouse class cannot. Even the funneling tactics (interesting bit) could be successfully acheive using tank hunter or 88 AA gun.

When I played Steel Panther, well I felt the Panther so much superior to the Tiger, only because of mobility.

After reading that, that is perhaps an agument for small asset to unit in SC. So we could have a small asset unit called Heavy-Tank thank put AT def/att +1, action point -1 (after all the speed of a unit is the speed of the slowest unit) at some cost. (My first thought was that the increase in AT def of unit was a enough.)

I like very much the idea of Sea monkey, to chose which unit to attach to an HQ. That could do the trick at this level of simulation.