Jump to content

airborne units and divisibles?


Recommended Posts

wat about airborne divisions or battalions?

and, wat about an ability to create, instead of just corps and armies, u can create regiments, battalions, and divisions?

then, if u want, u can draw a box around them, and put them together to form attalions and regiments and divisions, etc, and vise versa? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off the the original topic?

SC isn't HOI...

On the subject Paras though, it'd be kewl. We could use them to secure Strategic Hexes that other units can't get to. Probably take something like a half strength Corps and charge a Crapload for it cause Paras are the Cream of the Crop and then pay a Huge Operational Fee to drop it so many hexes that must be transported by a Bomber Unit.

During a possible Sea Lion<Germans had a lot of gliders and Paras prepared to capture key points in England> or vis Versa Western Front Action D-Day Paras were very important to dropping behind the lines and securing strategic points.

Even in Crete, which just for historys sake should have a port in SC tongue.gif not just but why would thousands of Germans and Brits die there for it if it wasn't useable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pandora's box and the can of worms issue.

When you look at almost any marine operation in the Pacific, the first obvious reality, is you couldn't fight a single famous battle using the SC game design.

Is that a problem though? Nope. SC is set in Europe, so it doesn't matter.

It does matter for anyone asking for the game to be set in the Pacific though.

It is a reality that the Airborne forces used in Europe were of significant importance though. Trouble is though, the lowest unit size is the corps.

It is also a reality that the Commandos played a vital role in Europe.

So what do we do?

The moment you open the gate for smaller formations, everyone and his uncle will be screaming for their own special interest formations.

Why not mountain troops for instance.

Why not different types of planes and more types of ships while we are at it.

Who knows, Hubert is probably at it at any rate. I have yet to see a version two of a computer gamne that wasn't a radical enhancement of the original at any rate.

Now if could have anything for quick fixes, I would think a port in a few places would be nice. Ireland is worthless. So too is several other locations on the map.

Subs are worthless. They accomplish nothing in the game. Little more than temporary nuisance till swatted.

Research is a bit vexing. I have seen a lot of talk about limits on it, I agree basically.

Sure the game is "what if", but that gets old fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The ideas are a hint for Hubert. I think that it's a valid point what you say. Add this or that, wonderful! Though it's not going to happen with the original title though someone brought up the point of what they'd like included in a future version by the title of this discussion.

Airborne units make a bit more sense than Mountain troops IMO. You can just rename a simple corp a Mountain one as they do in Greece or here or there in Barbarossa Scenario and so what's the difference? Engineer Corps, Elite Units, Destroyers, real Fighters not Super FighterBombers<that's something you could change in the current engine for the better!>. Plus Carriers that carry Nukes tongue.giftongue.gif UberRockets that're more like SmartBombs when historically did they ever kill a single Living Soldier? Maybe a couple AA batteries tongue.gif

Some of the units you mentioned... had no real special operation on strategic level. Meanwhile Airborne troops do... They allow you to land behind the lines, yet again far too detailed for the current Game Engine, agreed. Remeber I live at the home of the 82nd Airborne ;) so naturally I'll see the use in Paras. More than Corps level amount of Paras died in France and Crete

UberDetail, nah don't want that. Though of course we dream, we hope for more... We want detail whatever comes is the programmers choice this is his brainchild. Of course I will honestly admit if Hubert doesn't design something interesting I may just take a few programming classes of my own tongue.gif if I could produce an SC2 like Game I would be 50G-100g richer I think. Is it worth it? Depends. Require a team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paras I like the idea, but limit each nation to only 1 or 2 units of this type at a time. If you already have 2 para-units you can't build any more until one of your existing units is destroyed.

As for subs, in certain games they make for a most interesting naval war, especially if the Italians have managed to breakout into the Atlantic. But alone, without support they will be swatted unless they Axis can build up a substantial number of them.

The research structure is good but the game should also offer investments/resource allocations with a guaranteed return that can only be purchased once.

Example 1> Spend 200MPP and get a +1 Air Defense bonus in one city (max +1 bonus per city). The allies could use this to help defend London. Of course unlike Air Defense research this expenditure will only benefit one city, not all your cities but it takes effect immediately. It also stacks with any bonuses due to technology advances (ie Air Defense Tech).

Example 2> Spend 200MPP on Armor Production (or Sub Production) and reduce the cost of producing Armor units by 5% (subs by 20%). Unlike industrial research this investment benefits the production of only one type of unit but it takes effect immediately.

Military Production Investments:

200 MPP - Armor Production - 5% cost reduction

200 MPP - Sub Production - 20%

200 MPP - Bomber Production - 20%

200 MPP - Air Fleet Production - 5%

200 MPP - Rocket Produciton - 10%

200 MPP - Cruiser Production - 10%

200 MPP - Carrier Production - 5%

200 MPP - Battleship Production - 5%

Example 3> Supply Depot - Spend 125MPP to Build a supply depot in one city hex. Any unit defending in that city does so at 100% readiness. Naturally the supply depot is destroyed if the city is occupied by the enemy.

Example 4> Supply Neutrals with Arms - Spend 125MPP to give a neutral nation an extra Corps. Now the UK could spend 125MPP and give Norway or Spain or Greece an extra corps. This unit appears next to the capital city if the neutral country is attacked. Of course, if the neutral nation is never attacked this extra unit will never appear. At the same time this option ensures that the 1 turn conquest of Norway or Greece is no longer a sure thing as the Allies might have sent these governments enough arms to equip an extra one or two or three or four corps.

[ February 16, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:

"then, if u want, u can draw a box around them"

What on earth do you mean?

Please say that isn't a reference to click drag and select like those frigging stupid RTS games.

RTS games r great, at least i like them tongue.gif . and yeh thats exactly wat i mean lol. drag and click box trick, u can turn a couple little units into 1 big 1. i think that would b very useful tongue.gif

for example, say u have an important hex to defen, but u have 3 regiments or 3 battalions, so y not drag and click and turn them into 1 division that will defend the hex? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Interesting and more realistic way to approach research. Odd to think you get Tech4 Jets 1 week in SC now and suddenly every Fighter and Carrier is instantly upgraded 3,000 miles away from home? tongue.gif

Supplying Minors would not be far off history. We did it, but usually to those we thought could put up a fight. So it should be limited to nations that the Allies thought could fight, like Poland or had a some sort of historical obligation to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark you must have played to many RTS games and not enough true hex using wargames hehe.

RTS games don't use turns which is the key factor.

It isn't a function of a single hex using wargame to be able to use a drag click capture box concept.

It's strictly a dynamic of the software employed in these games. Games with structured turns have no capacity to do that, where each unit must receive individual commands specifically within a specified turn structure.

On the subject of units of lower scale, part of the problem is often the insistence there has to be a physical unit present.

I think subs for instance should be an abstract expenditure and resolved effect. If the allies don't counter this abstracted effect with the appropriate counter effect, then the resulting simulated response only becomes increasingly severe.

Thus, if the German player soaks resources into submarine warfare, and the Allies do nothing, then in time the war of the Atlantic is lost and Britain eventually succumbs exactly as it would have happened, and Sealion never need occur to defeat England.

And we need never see an impotent sub counter ever on the map to do this. It was done this way in Third Reich and worked excellently.

The counter was in producing ASW assets.

The Allies offensive arm was in Bombers. But the bombers can remain counters, as they actually were multi role applied during the war. The burden is to know when to use them and how much to use them in each role.

Strategic bombing need not be done deliberate to be simulated. Just apply exact same methodology as with subs as was done in Third Reich.

This only need be a chart accessed much as Research is a chart accessed.

In this way, you get historical conditions, historical repercussions, and the ability to decide if you could have carried it out better.

And you never had to employ impotent counters on the board.

Same whole philosophy holds true with Airborne assets and other troops of a highly valued yet minor quantity sized force. Only three divisions of airborne landed on D Day. And there wasn't enough for either nation to make even a half corps.

Now a menu option for an attacking unit, to use pre purchased airborne assets, that would be expended much as would always be the case, is a better idea than forcing a counter onto the map, that doesn't fit in with the games scale and design concept. I can't see any realistic reason to expect them in SC2 either.

The Airborne assets are gone the turn after dropped. And keep in mind. Airborne troops are no longer a viable notion 2 weeks after a drop. They would get absorbed into the unit they supported.

They should just be a modification to the attack calculation software used to calculate effects in SC2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


even Fighters could be an abstract Unit as well ;) I mean honestly they didn't do that much damage to Land units... On Average what is your Air to Land Kill Ratio with a fighter in SC? 30% of land units destroyed by Air and about 90% of all units destroyed entirely by air.

Give me a friggin break... Not one fighter unit ever killed an Army or Corps in WW2. If you're going to say it one way then it works both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edwin ;)

Subs were a factor in WW2, a slight bit different though. More like Strategic Bombers, but IMO 10 Xs more effective! Ask around! Most of the bombing damage was repaired, the ships however once they hit the bottom couldn't easily be replaced until the USA entered. The Battle of the Atlantic was a huge effort, many men and many tons of equipment hit the bottom. We should have a kewl War there. Just as important as many other aspects of the game.

Plus there was a lot of ships used to escort duty. I honestly think that the inclusion of Destroyers into the game and the phazing out of the Ahistorical Amphibious warfare available to players as being key to the realism and feel of SC. In certian locations the control of Supply by Sea was the deciding factor, like N.Africa... In other places over a vast ocean they were a bit more trivial but still costly...

put up all the figures.. the Germans and Italians The Japanese even more were looking to effect the Enemy at Sea. Hurt them over the vastness <the Japanese probably the only ones equiped to hurt the Allies truly thoug>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...