Zeres Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 "How bout giving the Free French a few of these old birds" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 20, 2002 Author Share Posted December 20, 2002 Zeres! Long time no see! Glad to you're back among the living -- more or less. [ December 20, 2002, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Billote Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 Who let that maniac out of his cage!!!..I'll ask you nicely once to go back to the hospital...Don't make me call the SS....Good boy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 20, 2002 Author Share Posted December 20, 2002 General Billote, What an unexpected honor. Yes, you're right, France will fall again -- and again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 heh just bringing this topic to the front page again. :cool: Well I know this has been talked about ad nausem already but here are some thoughts of mine: 1)I always liked naval boxes on map to represent huge stretches of ocean. World in Flames did a pretty good job especially when using them with Uboat/commerce raiding. Even if the Allies cover those boxes, there is still a chance for Uboats to sink commercial shipping. this would really stretch UK fleets. Also naval rules in SC make it too easy to find and destroy enemy fleets which kind of makes putting points into sonar and gun laying radar a waste. Especially if the Axis AI doesn't bother building naval assets. So basically perhaps instead of hexes for ocean spaces...just use boxes with printed movement point costs or something to reflect distances. 2) Also the UK should remove both a carrier and battleship 10 factor fleets in 1941 to reflect Japan's entry into the war as well as to protect India/Ceylon pipeline. 3) Allow greater US production. I'd say increase US to 250 at least. By mid 1944, the US was far outproducing material to defeat both Japan and Germany. 4)Or implement factory production multipliers like in WIF (World In flames) where prewar production for US, USSR etc is only 1/2 capacity at first and as time passes during wartime, they increase factory production to multiples of 1, 2, or 3 etc. Put caps on certain countries so this multiplier doesn't get out of hand. (e.g. a single 10 factory can produce 30 MMP by 1944 if it's in the US etc) I thought industrial technology research was something like that at first. I didn't realize it just lowered unit costs. anyways, my 2 cents worth PS - I also had a big beef on current supply rules and the ability for either side to reinforce units to the max even if the unit was totally isolated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 30, 2002 Author Share Posted December 30, 2002 Genghis "2) Also the UK should remove both a carrier and battleship 10 factor fleets in 1941 to reflect Japan's entry into the war as well as to protect India/Ceylon pipeline. A good point not gone into before that I know of. The Pacific War doesn't really interact with this theater in the game. Perhaps it should. As to the redundance of suggestions and how nobody knows what was posted earlier on the same subject by others because the site is basically unorganized, the issue was addressed in another forum called Ten or Twelve Permanent and Unmovable Forums for Upgrade Suggestions.. [ December 29, 2002, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Trying to devise a playable and workable naval movement system for a game like SC/WiF/3R (or even HoI...) presents quite a dilemma. The "area movement" system (seen in WiF and CoS) would make you think that a fleet of ships will be hanging out continuously in an area of ocean for 2 months, while they would actually be in port for most of that time, sortieing only for the most vital missions. With seazones you have no choice as to which enemy ships to intercept (if any)-you either go after all of them (until all your guys are on the bottom), or none (if you decide to hide in port). Too abstract and crude for me. I like how SC handles it-actually lets you move ships around individually, which is a lot more fun than letting them sit in a seazone waiting to be sunk by some dry CRT. However the time scale usually doesn't really mesh with such individual movement. It takes a fast ship like a cruiser a month to move across the Atlantic-more in non- summer seasons-when it actually would take only 7-10 days depending on sea state. If Hubert makes the Atlantic bigger without changing the movement rates of ships that will be a problem. If you double the Atlantic's width and then double ship movement, then that might present its own set of thorny issues [perhaps Hubert you could let ships move TWICE per turn, so that they aren't constrained to zip on past a formerly unseen enemy task force? "Sorry we can't engage you old chaps but orders are orders ya know"]. None of the choices here are going to be easy... John DiFool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 30, 2002 Author Share Posted December 30, 2002 John DiFool Agreed. There isn't any simple solution. All the suggested improvements and all the alternate systems have good and bad points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GroupNorth Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 I'd very much like to brainstorm some ideas for SC2 naval warfare. I believe the best compromise is to develop an alternative combat system for ships and especially subs. This system would be directly influenced by a more diversified, cost effective techtree. In fact, I'm overflowing with ideas for just about everything to do with SC2! Modern wargames. Gotta like it! My first paper and dice game was 'Divine Right' published by TSR. It was hardly a real wargame, but it was fun and steered me into the ways of the hex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 JerseyJohn - ok I'll head over to the other forum then also And yes I hope SC2 does reflect more of what went on in the Pacific Theatre as well. Again I just don't feel that the Royal Navy currently isn't suffering the incredible strains that actually happened to them during the early days in the war 1939-1941. Forcing the removal of a 10 factor carrier and 10 Battleship fleet helps strengthen that point. John DiFool - Aye I also agree that there isn't a simple solution to the naval aspect. Actually naval units in SC can easily stay out at sea anyways for 2 months+ with ships at 10 supply so having area boxes shouldn't be any different than if you moved ships individually from hex to hex. I've even had ships out in the oceans longer than 2 months just running around with 0 supply. I just feel that it's too easy for ships to be spotted and sunk currently in SC. A possible solution might be to introduce weather elements (i.e rain, rough seas etc), at the time of battle that way there might be a chance for enemy surface fleets to elude contact and/or combat. Actually we can also expand the area box concept by using the point to point movement system (ie. a series of boxes with movement costs between each box). That way at least you won't suffer from just putting ships into big areas and hope for the best. Point to point system for sea movement in a grand strategic game like this might actually work really well GroupNorth - Pls let me know what you have already discussed so far with others. Yes I also agree that a deeper tech tree would be great for the naval aspect. when playing the Allies, I just ignore the naval tech tree since the Axis AI never seems to develop nor build naval assets to challenge Allies. [ December 30, 2002, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Genghis ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Axis Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 I think some of the ideas in here are very "good" the possability of a naval invasion of the US was nill. Also the ability to place Axis subs where ever the Axis so desire isn't available. They got them through the straights of gibraltar, blocked the Murmansk pipeline. NorthSea/Atlantic/even south Atlantic they would seek asylum in foreign ports<like Argentina> how about designated seas seperated from the game as a strato-aspect of the game. That you assign units to that particular zone for a period of turns and success depending on unit-math. As well as countermeasures by Allied convoys. Air/Sea/Intel... I hate being hunted down like a dog, in the atlantic when I know that in true life the subs hide well and weren't found in large #s till much later in the war by improved Allied countermeasures. If you want solve the American Problem VERY VERY simple! Make the hexes at a point in the map single movement per turn. Plus -supply for Axis landing anywhere in N.America...to the degree it's a waste.. Oh, and another thing, Strategic bombing. Make it more painful I believe. I don't see it used nearly enough and in reality it was devastating to the Axis... As well as demoralizing to the Allies early in the War.... Perhaps minus MPP for countries that don't protect their airspace....a citizen morale penalty if you will.. Off to bed Cheerios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 30, 2002 Author Share Posted December 30, 2002 Genghis -- " - ok I'll head over to the other forum then also --" It's worth examining those old forums. I really wish we had a way to organize or at least keep current a lot of these ideas, because a lot of guys who haven't posted in a while, like dgaad had excellent comments to offer. Newer guys, including myself, are often stuck rephrasing things that were covered excellently earlier and it's through no fault of our own. It would be much better if we could read those same ideas as expressed earlier by others and, instead of repeating them, we'd be able to take them further. Supreme Axis "Oh, and another thing, Strategic bombing. Make it more painful I believe. I don't see it used nearly enough and in reality it was devastating to the Axis... As well as demoralizing to the Allies early in the War...." Definitely. The Battlecruisers Sharnhorst and Gneisenau were constantly raided in Brest and damaged often enough to keep them out of action most of the time they were there. The BB Tirpitz was harried to death in the Norwegian fjiords and ultimately sunk at anchor by bombers. The game, ironically has the bombers menacing ships at sea, where they were relatively inept, over tactical aircraft, like torpedo bombers and the Stuka, which was the number one ship killer among WW II aircraft. While at the same time minimizing their effect on ships in port. Your slow hex idea is good and brings out how badly we need to have these forums more well organized as Martinov expressed it in identical terms a short time ago -- you had no way of knowing. My idea was to not allow Axis surface vessels and transports to travel West in the Atlantic beyond a given hex line close to North America. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn someone else made that suggestions months earlier. Even my organizational idea was expressed earlier -- I've learned -- by SpiderMonkey. My hat's off to him, he adds a lot of fun to these things and has good ideas as well. [ December 30, 2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 19, 2003 Author Share Posted December 19, 2003 Some things never change, on almost the exact anniversary of the last post to this one, by yours truly, I'm bringing it back as it still has many interesting ideas and some great posts. Hopefully some of the guys who contributed to it will choose to come back as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I hope we don't go to sea blocks. I enjoy moving my navy around. The solution would be to increase the number of ocean hexes. Thus the great unknown would actually be unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 20, 2003 Author Share Posted December 20, 2003 Why not a combination system? Sea blocks for distant ocean regions with hexes for those close to land. U-boats and commerce raiders could operate in the sea block zones, with other units hunting them, all done abstractly, those same units could then choose to be redeployed the following turn in some coastal area for hex movement. That way each naval unit would have a number of values. U-boats and German surface vessels would have combat and commerce raiding ratings while U. S. & British cruisers would be rated for combat and anti-sub / commerce raiding ability. British and American Cruisers would have the ability to shadow German BBs and BCs in deep ocean regions, making them more likely to be caught by Allied BBs, BCs and CVs. Allied CVs would have the greatest anti-submarine capabilities with BBs and BCs having the least; cruisers being in the middle. CVs would have the greatest all around fighting abilities and usefulness, including enhanced recon functions. A new destroyer unit would have only slight surface action ability but high anti-destroyer and escort value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 The problem with a 50 mile hex is scale. You would need a map four times (4x) larger than the one we have now, to represent the North Atlantic. Does it make sense to allocate the resources to make a map where 90% of the action is concentrated on 25% of the map? Naval supply rules would have to be changed (or else everyones ships are going be at supply level 0). New programming would need to be added so you could scale down the map (ie the "war map", which in effect shows you your units on a scaled down version of the map, wouldn't be large enough). You also have to add "next unit" scrolling, so you could find your units without having to endlessly scroll back and forth. And for what? So we could experience the "joys" of spotting a submarine or surface raider and then attacking it with a few units? You could implement sea zones and do the programming necessary to support them in a fraction of the time it would take to support a "50 mile hex North Atlantic", since the foundations are already there in the Suez Canal arrows. For example, assume one or two of the Suez arrows actually sent units to Egypt, as it does now. The next two arrows to the left could send you to the Indian Ocean. Two more arrows to the left could send you to the South Atlantic. Put some more arrows on the western edge and you can represent the Caribbean, eastern coast of US Atlantic, eastern coast of Canada Atlantic, even the "long way" to the Pacific. Take the US and Canada off map, so we can end these useless debates about if its ok to "invade" Canada or US. Not to mention the whole debate about how many MPPs the US should have. With the US being off map, its MPP number can be set, even modified by year (to assume some sort of war mobilization increase). Even more important, we could modify the beginning MPP number in our new Campaign Editor (for those of us who won't agree with whatever number the US is given). I'd rather have that and more time spent on specific units per nations, larger North Africa and Northern Europe. Even possibly more of Russia and the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 20, 2003 Author Share Posted December 20, 2003 Agreed. This was the companion Thread to one called North America which, among other things, presented thoughts about removing the Western Hemisphere from the map altogether. I still feel that way. The point of the North America Thread was that Germany saw itself as possessing an Atlantic Fleet only after defeating the USSR and forcing terms on the UK, which is an historical fact. Regarding the sea boxes which were being discussed, I still wouldn't mind seeing them as a separate screen for commerce and commerce raiding activities with ocean hexes for the immediate area around Europe and it's enclosed seas -- Mediterranean, Baltic, Black and North Seas with the English Channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 I like your idea Jersey. Keep the hexes that we have(maybe expand the Med just a bit), then add boxes in the Atlantic(and Pacific if thats part of the new game). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 I like your idea Jersey. Keep the hexes that we have(maybe expand the Med just a bit), then add boxes in the Atlantic(and Pacific if thats part of the new game). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 20, 2003 Author Share Posted December 20, 2003 KDG Glad we have the same view, expanding the Med a bit would be very good, even if it means a slight distortion losing water for land to maneuver in. I think just one more row of hexes would solve the problem, two at the narrowest and three at the widest (the Western desert, there's already space in Algeria, but it's almost never used). I think the Sea Box concept was originally from Immer Etwas, as have been so many others that he is never credited with having originated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Solution is easier than you think. 1- Full world map with full WW2. 2- Extensive editor that includes map editing. Once you have 2, you can do it however you please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 I'll likely soon post my version of how I'd like the Battle of the Atlantic to be [hint: it WON'T have those abominable sea zones, which greatly over- simplify gameplay IMNSHO]. If it is a matter of computer resources [map size limits or the like], then yes I see how a Big Atlantic might be redundant, but otherwise to truly simulate what was going on there seazones suck. [And computer World in Flames will have them-let Hubert try something else instead!] I'll say this: if we have seazones in SC2 I'm not buying it. John DiFool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 20, 2003 Author Share Posted December 20, 2003 Fine, so let's see the alternative, other than a solid wall of 100x100 blue hexes! Seazones are an abstraction. I'm not crazy about settling for that but am even less keen on the alternatives I've seen. Let's also get things in there like the Canaries and Iceland and the Azores so there's a possibility of scrambling for bases and refueling stations. If the alternative to seazones is something that requires twice as much time and effort as the rest of the game so a few ships and subs can go scurrying around playing hide-and-seek, then I'd definitely be against it. That being said, it's always good to see your postings. [ December 20, 2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzeh Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 I agree. Such a wall of hexes would be impractical for this type of game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 20, 2003 Author Share Posted December 20, 2003 Panzeh, Thanks, I can see even from your first post that you're a sensible guy and a great asset to this assemblage! Looking forward to many more postings in the future. [ December 20, 2003, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts