Disbanding Naval Units

[Shaka of Carthage]

Disbanding Naval Units

This is something that has bothered me about SC from day one. I've been meaning to mention this for months, but it never seems to come up in an appropriate place. So I've created a seperate topic to discuss it.

In the early days, there was a change made to reduce the amount of MPPs that you received. Mainly because the French player would disband his naval units to get more land units for the defense of France. Hence the change, which I believe reduced your MPP recovery to 10% (from 50%?). I'd like to offer what I feel is an more approriate alternative (hint, hint, for SC2).

Naval units should not be allowed to disband, unless they are strength three (3) or less.

Now, if a Naval unit is heavily damaged, instead of rebuilding it, the resources could be put to other use (ie the manpower transferred to the Army or Air Force). But it would only be a decision made for a shattered unit, not a full strength one. Its extremely rare, for any branch to take any full compliment of men and material and give it away to another branch. Not to mention the political rivalries that existed between the various branches.

This won't fix the broken naval system in SC, but it would correct a problem in any future new system.

[Panzer39]

I like that idea especially for the non-1939 scenarios. I think another way to solve the problem would be to create a "free build 1939" scenario that gave each player a stating amount of MPPS and allowed them to buy and place units with the cash before war broke out.

As for the Idea alone another way to go could be to make the disbandment of Naval units take several turns. You sell a BB and than get 1/3 of its worth for three turns. By that time France could have fallen

[Curry]

I like the original plan of getting 50% for the navy ships instead of cutting it down to 10%. I know its not historical at all. But it would help the French and in this game the allies and the French need all the help they can get. This again is only from a game playability stand point, not historical or realism.

[Edwin P.]

Disbanding naval units gives the Allies a limited; very limited, amount of freedom to adjust their initial force structure. Of course this might not occur if the Germans were given more latitude with the placement and number of subs starting in the Atlantic.

[ February 28, 2004, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Pochenko]

I like "Panzer39" idea of having the chance to select your units at the begining. It would make a much more strategic game. Of course each country should have some limits (not only in MPP) in the number of Infantry, Naval units, Air units and Hq, so the game remains with some historicall balance.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Screw play balance and screw historical.

The fact is, no military unit, naval or otherwise should be allowed to disband unless it is at strength 3 or less in my opinion.

In the real world (and lets face it you all like to scream blue murder the second realism is beat all to hell), in the real world, you do not disband perfectly good units wholesale without damned good provocation.

A unit beat down to strength 3 or less is likely a burden not an asset. Normally it is costing supplies, and not generating any return on those supplies expended.

A full strength unit though, it cost a great deal in resources to produce. In the real world throwing away a full strength naval unit is going to costs someone's head at the professional level.

I have done the ditch the French Navy to buy a HQ unit trick. Half the time I get a HQ unit that returns a lousy level of performance too. No garantee it was worth it in all cases.

But it is about as gamey as gamey gets.

It is also gamey as hell taking the French air unit and dumping it in Malta and essentially saying screw the French they will lose anyway, and I could use the freebie for the British.

But SC is just a game, and gamey in a game is basically just using what you can intelligently in some respects.

I would suggest, either limit disbanding to strength 3 or less for all units of any type, or not do anything at all.

Limiting it to Naval has no bearing in cold logic justification. The navy is no more special than any other service branch.

If you can disband one unit casually, then you can apply it to all.

[JerseyJohn]

I agree with Panzer39's idea, which would also help stop some of the standard opening tactics that only favor people obsessed with playing the game.

On the original point I agree entirely with Shaka's premise. Navies don't release their manpower to brother services, never!

As for converting ships, materially, into other units, a bit difficult fitting 5" or larger guns on to tank turrets, so the vessel would need to be scrapped first before it can be converted to anything, other than having it's guns used in coastal fortifications. Which, considering the time and construction investment put into creating a warship seems an incredibly poor return on the original investment.

I'd say 10% is awfully generous! Truth is the whole process is a total loss.

[Bill101]

I beg to differ about navies releasing their manpower to other services. It's a while since I read it, but if my memory serves me well about 100,000 German sailors reinforced the crumbling Wehrmacht towards the end of the war. Just as Luftwaffe personnel were transferred too (and I'm not talking about the prestigious Luftwaffe units like the Herman Goering division either).

Towards the end of the war the British army was also receiving men from anti-aircaft units and other units that were no longer needed, to serve as infantrymen, for the British were running out of infantrymen too.

Yes, it is historically correct to disband units that haven't been beaten up, but in real life it only happens when they no longer have a useful function to perform. That is something that no game could decide for us, so I think the 10% idea is ok.

Yes, it is gamey to sell a battleship to buy a HQ, but I can't see another way round it, unless by selling a battleship you get a discount on your next Corps?

Or, perhaps the navy can only be disbanded in the mother country, and instead of getting MPPs you get a weak Corps (say, at strength 5). This Corps would be created as near to the port as possible, and only if there is space for it. That avoids it being created hundreds of miles away from the port where the sailors docked.

[ February 29, 2004, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[JerseyJohn]

"Yes, it is historically correct to disband units that haven't been beaten up, but in real life it only happens when they no longer have a useful function to perform. That is something that no game could decide for us, so I think the 10% idea is ok."

Okay Bill, no need for you to beg to differ as you always have a good reason for doing so!

As you say, those instances you quote were toward the end of the war when Germany was clearly on it's last legs and Britain was so pressed for manpower it was canibalizing units. For Germany, of course, in the last days it's navy no longer had a function except the last efforts of it's Baltic evacuations.

The Soviets, of course, freely moved people from it's navy into trenches, especially around Leningrad, but then not many of us (or anyone else) has been quick to praise the USSR's use of it's citizens under Stalin.

So, all in all, we pretty much agree that 10% is a plausible figure.

[ February 29, 2004, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Bill101]

Another thing I've just thought of is that scrapping naval units doesn't just free up sailors for service in the trenches when things are desperate, but it also frees up all the clerks, fitters, mechanics, supply troops, dockers etc. who were involved in some way in maintaining the naval units.

Some of them at least can also be switched to a different role, thus adding to the country's military infrastructure.

[JerseyJohn]

That was the big problem with the Luftwaffe forming it's own ground units, they were taking techicians -- most air force personnel are people with either technical or clerical skills -- and turning them into infantrymen. Meanwhile the regular army was taking new recruits and training them as it's own technicians. A rediculous waste of time, training and manpower.

Then again, Germany from even the coldest viewpoint wasted so much in not only human skills, but human life itself, that it seems pointless to discuss it's conduct.

Though I agree with your point, I've to add that in reality people are usually taken from where they are and put where they're immediately needed. I saw plenty of that in the Air Force, the working beside me had spent a year at language shool learning Bulgarian, then they decided they didn't need him in that area so he was suddenly on the flightline despite knowing several other languages fluently! Right next to me and I came out of a band unit as an accomplished musician, something you can't suddenly teach a new recuit at all!

Personnel placement by quija board!

[ February 29, 2004, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Bill101]

JJ wrote:Then again, Germany from even the coldest viewpoint wasted so much in not only human skills, but human life itself, that it seems pointless to discuss it's conduct.

I agree John. It's funny that when I read about Nazi Germany I find myself criticising its colossal inefficiency (I can't help it), yet at the same time I'm glad it was so inefficient because otherwise they might have won.

[ February 29, 2004, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[JerseyJohn]

Bill

Exactly, militarily it's role in the war presents a fascinating situation, but playing as the Axis and winning somehow leaves you with the feeling of "What have I done!"

In the middle of researching the Holocaust for a novel in progress I've been seeing more and more statements by fanatical SS men that the whole extermination program was utterly moronic even to those who didn't care at all about human life!

It would be interesting to see what Germany would have looked like in 1939 if it weren't burdened with it's extreme racism but still pursueing an expansionist agenda. For one thing it would have had it's original million or so Jews contributing -- the idea that it gained something by plundering them is nonsensical, the SS picked up a lot of gold and treasures, but the country itself lost much more in terms of actual productivity.

Beyond it's own borders it would have had no problem recruiting newly conquered people such as the Poles and Russians -- it's hard to fight for a country that openly classifies you as a subhuman! Other countries, such as the United States, while disturbed by the outright aggression would not have had the extermination element to fuel the cause and make negotiation impossible.

Ironically, one of the reasons United States officials were hesitant to believe the Final Solution stories is that the couldn't imagine Germany devoting so much of it's rolling stock to the sole purpose of moving masses of civilians to virtual slaughter houses -- and in the middle of an all-out war! It was too incredible for anyone to believe. Even American Jews thought the stories to be greatly exaggerated.

The whole thing is especially ludicrous in Russia, where untold millions of anti-communitsts were pushed into starvation and enmity for no reason other than Hitler's contempt of the Slavs.

A few years after the war Stalin began planning his own version of the Holocaust exactly along the lines employed by Hitler. Pretty incredible. The only thing I can figure is under the surface he looked up to brother dictator and fellow psychotic.

Amazing how these conversations develop out of something like disbanding warships! I wonder how many hundreds of times I've wandered hopelessly off-topic like this? Glad we don't have statistics on that sort of thing!

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Les the Sarge, 9-1:

I would suggest, either limit disbanding to strength 3 or less for all units of any type, or not do anything at all.

This seems about right.

I am always in favor of restricting "gamey" strategems, and that disbanding of French Navy is one of the most egregious examples.

Chances of it happening IRL... 0.000001 %

If that.

That SHOULD BE the criteria... COULD it have happened, because we DO NOT want to shove aside reasonable "what-ifs."