Paratroopers

[pzgndr]

Paras have been ruled out by Hubert with good reason.

Sorry about the airborne guys, unfortunatly there is always something missed but I have been taking note and listed all of these suggestions for a possible SC2

Unless Hubert's changed his mind since April 21st and categorically ruled out airborne for future enhancements, I'd say it's still on the table for consideration and the general concensus appears to be that it should at least be included as an option. [Except for at least one individual who thinks it's a stupid idea regardless, but he doesn't have to click on the stupid option if he doesn't want to. ]

Whenever Hubert gets around to looking at this again, here's a proposal: Airborne corps units should be like regular 10-factor corps units, but triple the build cost and triple the transport cost for airdrops. Airdrops should start in or adjacent to a city, have a range of 6 hexes, be vulnerable to air interception but also able to be escorted, and be eligible for a surprise bonus but subject to landing losses. Unlike sea transport, airborne would have to load/move/unload all in the same turn. You obviously could not land on top of an enemy unit. No special supply rules should apply except for supply/readiness requirements to make the airdrop. Once on the ground, airborne acts like regular infantry corps for combat and movement, including sea transport. And obviously the airdrop feature would only be availabe for airborne-type units.

This would give players the capability to perform expensive and risky airborne operations if the stategic situation presents opportunities to do so. Players would have to decide if it's worth it. This abstraction for airborne operations has been successful in Third Reich, World in Flames, Clash of Steel and other games at this scale, so should work fine in some future version of Strategic Command. [For most of us. ]

[Bruce70]

Sorry about the airborne guys, unfortunatly there is always something missed but I have been taking note and listed all of these suggestions for a possible SC2

If SC2 is at a different scale I don't have a problem with that. We have heard nothing about SC2 and I don't even think Hubert has had time to think to much about it. I believe Husky was saying that airborne has been ruled out for SC1 and perhaps (though Hubert wasn't specific) for this scale of game.

I don't expect historical accuracy in this style of game but airborne units at this scale is IMO historically absurd. But if Hubert does decide to add it that's his business but please make it an option - preferable with the default being NO paratroops.

Incidentally I think the default for FOW should be ON, its not much of a game with it off.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

"Unless Hubert's changed his mind since April 21st and categorically ruled out airborne for future enhancements, I'd say it's still on the table for consideration and the general concensus appears to be that it should at least be included as an option."

So now you are trying to apply Huberts quote in relation to a possible SC2 to SC1?

Fail, Paras have been ruled out of SC1.

" [Except for at least one individual who thinks it's a stupid idea regardless, but he doesn't have to click on the stupid option if he doesn't want to."

But is still going to push to have Hubert not waste his time on a ridiculous feature.

Thats the funny part, you see it as being perfectly valid for you to push for this one, absurd feature (taking up limited programming time) - yet don't see it as being valid for others to push for it to be ignored so that bug fixing/useful improvements can be made.

See, it isn't 'just a switch that you don't have to select', it means some other feature wont get done.

"Whenever Hubert gets around to looking at this again, here's a proposal: Airborne corps units should be like regular 10-factor corps units, but triple the build cost and triple the transport cost for airdrops. Airdrops should start in or adjacent to a city, have a range of 6 hexes, be vulnerable to air interception but also able to be escorted, and be eligible for a surprise bonus but subject to landing losses."

Great so they can be dropped 250 miles behind enemy lines in one lift and the enemy has no chance to rebase fighters to take advantage of the ongoing turkey shoot that such an ongoing armarda would provide.

" Unlike sea transport, airborne would have to load/move/unload all in the same turn. You obviously could not land on top of an enemy unit."

Why not? historically they always landed within 50 miles of an enemy?

" No special supply rules should apply except for supply/readiness requirements to make the airdrop. Once on the ground, airborne acts like regular infantry corps for combat and movement, "

So what happens to the thousands of C-47s that dropped them, are they scrapped post jump?

"This would give players the capability to perform expensive and risky airborne operations if the stategic situation presents opportunities to do so. Players would have to decide if it's worth it. This abstraction for airborne operations has been successful in Third Reich, World in Flames, Clash of Steel and other games at this scale,"

No, it has been a farce, but airborne gaming zealots simply refuse to accept that and have continued to pretend it works, in spite of the obvious.

" so should work fine in some future version of Strategic Command. "

Good plan, continue the failures of others 'because they got away with it'.

[pzgndr]

This discussion is getting unprofessional.

On one side we have years (decades!) of precedence established by Third Reich, World in Flames, Clash of Steel and others that have demonstrated that an airborne abstraction at the SC game scale is fine, at least for thousands of stupid players who have played those games for enjoyment. By some cruel trick of fate, I am a member of this crowd.

On the other side we have a handful of intrepid individuals with the opinion that the airborne abstraction at this game scale is not fine and never was, should not be included in SC or any future enhancement at this scale, and should not even be included as an option for anyone else.

This is a game. It is not real. It is entertainment. SC can expand to accomodate various advanced game features and options that players may select. A compromise solution is possible here for those willing to accept one. I fully expect Hubert to consider airborne at least as an option in some future version, but that's his design decision to make. I suggest we all wait to see what happens and give our attitudes a chance to cool off. [And that includes my own airborne-ranger-infantry hardheaded arrogance. ]

[husky65]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Snipped bit about how other games have faked it for years - I still have not heard one example from WW2 suggesting that Paras could sieze a 50 mile area.

"This discussion is getting unprofessional. "

I'm not getting paid for this discussion, are you?

"This is a game. It is not real. It is entertainment. SC can expand to accomodate various advanced game features and options that players may select. A compromise solution is possible here for those willing to accept one. I fully expect Hubert to consider airborne at least as an option in some future version,"

I don't care what Hubert does in a future version, I will decide to buy or not buy SC2, 3 etc on its merits, however, having bought SC1, I will continue to lobby against ANY inclusion of such an absurd idea as Paras at this scale, as is my right.

" but that's his design decision to make. I suggest we all wait to see what happens and give our attitudes a chance to cool off. [And that includes my own airborne-ranger-infantry hardheaded arrogance. ]"

As long as anyone is lobbying to include Paras in SC1 I will oppose it, the programming time is better spent on almost any other feature.