poots Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I think navies could become a lot bigger part of the game by simply lowering the damage output. Could'nt this be patched pretty easily? Navies are basically a non-factor because they get blown up so quickly. It makes me sad when my little guys get sunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Pootsy --- Agreed, getting your ships deposited at the bottom of the ocean is rather depressing. The British built a rather large empire with their navy & technology, that's why half the planet speaks English (thank God). The Germans can't stick their neck out of Denmark without alot of air cover. The Italians & UK can have a nice bloodbath in the Med, if UK is willing participant. Usually, the LF scares them off. Main problem is the UK navy can't get supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reiver Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I agree with you both - the way Naval units get chewed up in the game is not good. I mean if you have the Mediterranean bloodbath you are having the largest naval battle since Jutland but with massive casualties (bigger than Jutland or Leyte) - fleets would retire before they had got to that level of damage. Maybe in SC2 the navies could get some sort of AI retiral factor built in to reflect the Admiral at the sharp end but not necessarily with the full picture deciding that discretion was the better part of valour and bugging out. Regards Reiver ps to jon_j_rambo it would be great to pop over for a game of Squad Leader but I live too far away - Scotland, however if I'm ever in Idaho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Squad Leader is a World Wide Treasure. It would seem very simple for somebody to program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I think navies could become a lot bigger part of the game by simply lowering the damage output. Could'nt this be patched pretty easily? This and several other minor issues could be patched, but still would not resolve the larger problems with SC. We need SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 We need SC2. As The Lizard King might say: "We want the whole world and we want it... NOW" I wonder if Jim ever played war board games? His old man WAS a Navy Commander, Once stationed in Desert City . In fact, 3 blocks from where I once lived... hmmm, Was THAT the kid who used to ride his bike Around town, singing out loud scats of old William Blake poems? :eek: "Tyger Tyger burning bright, Up in the diamond-lucent sky, Out of sight!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheesehead Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I concur with you all about the unrealistic naval damage. Especially when German subs with tech level 2 are able to just about blast a BB fleet out of the water in one attack. This just did not happen in any war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skanvak Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 The whole naval system is not realistic. The navy work like ground unit. I don't know either i this is realistic that a cruiser counter (several ships actually) could block the a whole naval hex (like the one taht block the channel of the adriatics). Another prb is the fact that a cruiser can be hammered to death by an ennemy fleet even with 2 dreadnought and a CV just adjacent. I agree that the whole no retreat system is strange at this scale wheter for infantry or naval unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 All of this has merit but ships that take years to build and fit out, battleships and heavy cruisers, are sunk in comparatively quick battles. The Hood went down after a few salvos. Bismarck was crippled during the course of several days and damaged during the Battle of the Denmark Straights, but still in fine battle trim (but for her hideous jammed rudder) when the British Home Fleet caught up to her and sank her with naval gunfire and torpedoes; it only too hours. In the Mediteranean a single Italian midget sub and a few frogmen blew out the bottoms of not one but two British BBs docked in Alexandria. At Taranto a British carrier raid much smaller than the one Japan later launched agains the U. S., crippled Italy's large BB force in what was supposed to be a safe harbor! In the Pacific the United States had six BBs and other ships put out of commission in a few hours during the Pearl Harbor raid. At Midway four large Japanese aircraft carriers, and one American of the same size, were sunk within hours of each other! And two decades before all this, the British and Imperial German Navies mauled each other at Jutland, several capital ships being lost on each side. In 1905 an entire Russian fleet was sent to the bottom by the Japanese at Tsu Shima. During WWI Churchill cautioned his top admirals and said they had the ability to lose the war in a single afternoon. So, looking at it that way, I don't think the damage system is overly radical. No, what I really want is a true Russian Winter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 Well said JJ and I'm in total agreement. Naval vessels are such fragile things. Think of it, one small insignificant aircraft with an optimally placed piece of ordnance and "BOOM" the whole damn thing goes down. We all know it, I don't need to sight examples, or do I? Okay have it your way....hmmmm, the RN lost roughly 1/3 of their operational naval assets in WW2 and they were on the winning side (278/885). 77 by aircraft and get this 23+ by accidents. So much for this thread's credibility. We so often post what we would like to see done better in SC2 or what could have been in SC1, we sometimes forget how well HC got things right. Just a reminder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 Thanks SeaMonkey, like those stats, great job hammering the point home. Most people don't realize how thinly stretched the Royal Navy was even after it had sunk the Bismarck. Knocking the Italian BBs out at Taranto a year earlier was of crucial importance -- without it they'd have been in very serious trouble, assuming Italy could have found some fueloil and spare parts for it's battlewagons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heroes Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 All wargames should come with several editors such as a unit editor. This way players can tweak the game to their liking and difficulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skanvak Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 I second totally and strongly Kelly's statements. Though it is not that easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 JerseyJohn and SeaMonkey I agree with your comments on naval warfare. A ship is hit at sea and it sinks, you can't run away and hide in a foxhole. During the Falklands War Argentina lost a battleship - the Belgrano - to a single British torpedo and 368 men died. (Note: one web site says 323, another says 368) As for a "cruiser can be hammered to death by an ennemy fleet even with 2 dreadnought and a CV just adjacent" that is realistic. A ship if caught alone at sea cannot be easily reinforced, especially if the reinforcing units are 50 miles away. When you engage in a ship to ship battle you engage one part of the fleet, and it takes a period of time for the other parts of the fleet to respond. All in all, I like the Naval system in SC. [ March 21, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skanvak Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 I have to disagree with the last part of your post Edwin. What is not realistic is two fold. That you cannot stack all your fleet on one hex. Fleet rarely have stacking prb. So putting a dreadnought and a CV next to a cruiser, mean that you are moving in close formation, likely with the CV in the middle. It is unrealistic to be forced to left boat (especially CV) unescorted in essence due to game mechanics. second, the aircrafts of the CV could react very fast and join easily the battle even at the game scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts