Liam Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 When there is an amphibious landing there is no extra charge for losses on hexes around cities or ports... Although when you bombard a city or Port with an airfleet/bomberfleet/or Naval vessel you run the risk of coastal batteries or anti-aircraft guns<it's well known that all AAA Artillery is quite easily leveled on Ships :)in Fact the most famous anti-aircraft gun of the War was turned into an AT weapon the 88 also and fitted to tanks... I suggest a Percentage failure rate... As well as a percentage failure rate for enemy air-subs-navalforces coastal batteries in the quantity of enemy forces on the coast. Would be realistic and right now Amphibious landing is a bit easy. Weather would be another thought but already discussed... [ October 27, 2003, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Liam ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Liam Good idea -- I think found something that the rest of us haven't considered. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if either JP Wagner or SeaMonkey posted a similar idea during the Forum's infancy. But even if they did, a good idea is always worth posting, and I don't think anyone else has had this one. [ October 27, 2003, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reepicheep Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 It's also interesting that strategically attacking a resource can immediately result in MPP's being destroyed out of the enemy's stockpile, but capturing a resource does not do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 John: I'm sure this issues has been addressed... It's kinda odd to think that all these ports and cities are brissling with A-aircraft...Coastal guns and yet none of them can hit transport aircraft with them? Kinda makes cities and ports defenseless. I figure that Hubert may have intended the use of Corps/garrisoned naval vessels for this defense. Although if you do have them there. Automatically the occuppying unit takes up for the usual port or city defense. Which is doesn't quite fit either. A corps may only be a few thousand men. In a city of Millions how does a team of fighters find the corps and target them in particular. How come you can't decide to hit the strategic part instead of the military target? Hmmm. The option should be available... As far as Resources go.. Ploesti had plenty of AA Guns, that must mean you have to plant a whole corps over it to get the same aprox. effect? Hmmm. That particular raid was quite costly and I doubt there was a group corps guarding but rather an Anti-Aircraft Unit itself... heh great idea [ October 27, 2003, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Liam ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Liam, Right -- the problem is scale. if the game were division based with hexes covering half the land area a lot of these things would need to be covered, but on this scale most of it has to be generalized. The game's strength and also it's weakness. Greater complications would be good, but to maintain Hubert's philosphy of keeping it easy to play, the added complexity would have to be built into the mechanism and the player not required to decide on any of it. Perhaps various ports and cities should receive anti-air and shore battery ratings which can be increased with expenditure of MPPs, creating an Atlantic Wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reepicheep Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Regarding Ploesti, don't forget that AA tech gives oil fields air defense values; thus that's already modeled. Players just tend to not pursue AA tech. By the way, (I know it's been said before ) it's also interesting that if a ground unit occupies a city, it can't take advantage of the city's naval defenses. And similarly, HQ's and rockets can't take advantage of a resource's air defense system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 Reep & John: I have never had a Occuppying unit strike back on attacking naval fleets from a city or port hex if a corps-Army-tank was there. Oddly enough... although I know you recieve protection if you have anti-air tech... Oilfields and Mines don't strike back on the attacking aircraft... August 1, 1943. The Ploesti raid. 1600 men manned the planes. 1300 made it back alive. Now part of the damage done to the aircraft was from enemy fighters and I'm sure the rest by Anti-Air guns/tech/etc... for SC Conditions there is a gap. That is why have one and not the other? So the game has superflous detail that doesn't carry through with what would be expected. What I am pointing out, scale is irrelevent. Although it should be addressed and do you really think that scale would hurt ease of gaming John? In fact it may widen the gaps that we get from stacks of Corps and allow for more breakthroughs and cut the monotonous attrittion Warfare that more than often decides victors and losers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Liam Going back to last year I've been one of those asking for greater realism in all aspects of the game even at the cost of ease of play! My priority is on a much more realistic game, even if meant having four times as many hexes, roughly 12 miles across and with the units based on a divisional / brigade scale. But I wouldn't look to inflict that on Hubert! [ October 30, 2003, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Perhaps various ports and cities should receive anti-air and shore battery ratings which can be increased with expenditure of MPPs, creating an Atlantic Wall. Perhaps, Disband a corps and get one to four options 1. MPP 2. Increase Air Defense by 1 (if on a city or resource hex, one time only, air defense bonus is lost if hex is occupied by an enemy unit) 3. Build an Airfield (if on a non-city hex) 4. Fortify Hex (increase city entrenchment value by 2, other hexes by 1) 5. Increase Shore Battery Ratings (increase readiness of defending units on coastal land hexes by 70% or give then an entrenchment value of 2 when attacked from other coastal land hexes or sea hexes (only sea hexes) - reflects pill boxes, bunkers and coastal defense guns that guard the coast, Shore defenses are destroyed if hex is occupied by enemy unit.) 6. Build Supply Depot (friendly units in the city hex have their readiness increased by 50%, supply depot destroyed if hex is occupied by enemy units) [ October 28, 2003, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 I like this notion of moving and subsequent disbanding of a corps around the map to simulate an investment in infrastructure improvement. This concept has many variables, the only problem I see is that the improvement may come to quickly, especially if SC2 is time structured turns as SC1. An improvement to an infrastructure such as fortifications, coastal defenses, airfields, etc takes a lot of time, more than a month. Maybe the final goal of completion should take multiple(depending on the improvement) transporting and disbanding of corps sort of on a tiered level. The final level is represented by an icon (small) of the appropriate improvement located in the hex of completion, an icon with a pick and shovel serve to show an incomplete improvement or a damaged improvement due to military actions. Now should multiple improvements be allowed to co-exist in the same hex? Obviously yes, but where do we draw the line? [ October 28, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Bomber should also always hit the ressource hex or city, and the unit which maybe was placed onto this hex. Let unit and hex suffer in this case. When a fighter only hits the unit, allright, but BOMBERS should hit everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reepicheep Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Oilfields and Mines don't strike back on the attacking aircraft...I'm almost certain that I've had air fleets damaged by ungarrisoned mines/oilfields once my opponent had gotten at least level one AA tech. [ October 28, 2003, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 i can confirm this, they strike back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 29, 2003 Author Share Posted October 29, 2003 I have never had an oilfield strike back yet. Although I never have played anyone who wasteds cash on AA tech. It's not very competitive, when you get jets. I'd rather buy another LR or Jet. AT/Tank Tech. That way I'm going to really get immediate gains. AA tech could really help if it was much cheaper like 1/3rd price. Especially for England-USA and Germany. The Nations with the type of advanced radar to have something of the sort. All occuppied cities require a garrison. Obviously More! Since occuppied oilfields as some say strike back. We know ports and cities do! Why not give them something other than a corp. A corp tends to be the garrison. 125 MPPs to garrison. Hmmmm. It supposed to be a frontfiller I purposed before do away with a superflous unit like Say the Bomber/Rocket and make Anti-aircraft-Artillery Unit. Something that would be much more usefel. Allow teh Artillery and AA to be abridged to whatever unit giving any Hex<most importantly HQs> AirProtection Kewl, Great and Wonderful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Hi Liam, You think AA investment is a waste and useless against Jets ? Then you never played as Allies against an opponent who developed Lv 3 Anti-Air . Jets only improves the combat values air vs air. You cant improve your attack capabilities vs ground units. To research Lv3 AA is not so expensive, 2-3 chits for 1-2 years is usually enough. Anti-air increases the damage of the attacking airfleet/bomber greatly for ALL ressources (including oil/mines) even without units standing there. And at the moment allies try to invade France, AA is deadly for them. They have to use airfleets to blow the city garrisons away. But when Germany has only an army in the city, an enemy fighter takes 4-7 strength points damage, with a tank its even worser. In the end its nearly impossible to kill an enemy unit in a city or on a ressource with airfleets. The only way is to clear the hexes around the city and take the city with ground units, which is very difficult for Allies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I would agree with Terif on this one. AA can indeed be an important factor, in either the defense of occupied France VS Brit AF and Strat Bombing (... so to gain sufficient Experience so to later aid in D-Day), or VS Allied forays into the occupied cities, once landed. As with any other "favored strategy"... all depends on the individual's choices. Some I have played will invest merely in Air (... exceptionally! boring) or Subs or SBs or miles and miles of marching Corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 As with any other "favored strategy"... all depends on the individual's choices. Some I have played will invest merely in Air (... exceptionally! boring) or Subs or SBs or miles and miles of marching Corps. Ocassionaly I will play as Germans and build an Army of Armor, no air, research Armor and Anti-Air, and hit the Russians with 12+ Tanks, usually of level 1 or 2 and just steam roller them. Its just a matter of constantly feeding in fresh units to keep up the pressure and rebuilding damaged units. I have also tried the same strategy with Armies and Corps. The AI should try various strateiges like this 70% Standard Strategy 5% Armor Focus 5% Army Focus 5% Overwhelming Air Strategy etc. etc. [ October 30, 2003, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 ...and hit the Russians with 12+ Tanks, usually of level 1 or 2 and just steam roller them. Well, all it would take to quite seriously counter that would be... L1 anti-tank for the Russians, yes? Having played many games, it was only in a recent game against that most-nefarious foe, Bill Macon that I truly realized just HOW potent the anti-tank tech advance can be... :eek: **More great suggestions, BTW... if I didn't suspect better, I would imagine that you are an off-shoot of the Grecian Oracle! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Well, all it would take to quite seriously counter that would be... L1 anti-tank for the Russians, yes? Correct; however, it will take the Russians on average about 10+ turns to reach L1 Anti-Tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 31, 2003 Author Share Posted October 31, 2003 Terif and Crew: Interesting, when I first started playing as a rookie. I researched AA tech to stop UK fighters from getting into my cities in Norway and France. At the time I didn't know that they were useless for units on open ground though. Which really peed me off..<that would REALLY make that research worth something> I unlike some am not a good manual reader, I tend to throw it to the side As far as AT technology. It doesn't take forever to get it.. I find that it's smart to research this for Italy and for Germany. I have in some of my games reached Level5 and it can be a deciding factor with experience/the Killing ability of that unit VS another that cannot reinforce to that sort of strength. Not only that it can be a good Anti-Bombing technique. Takes more fighters to destroy a unit. Usually for the USA it's good. Having them blow out Fighter technology and focus on that AT...so that they can land in France using British Jets and level3-4 USA LT... Really strong. If you don't stay competitive it's an easy way to smash through France. Especially if level0 Italians are guarding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts