Paratroopers?

[Straha]

nt

[ August 08, 2002, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

[Straha]

double double posts by me this time.

[ August 08, 2002, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

[Bruce70]

An idea...if there are not to be any paratroopers, then maybe BOTH the Axis and Allies (read the player and the AI) could start the game with, for example, three paratroop/fallschirm 'counters'. This 'counter' would be placed on the players main interface (the game screen), starting at three, and then at the beginning of each turn, the player (or the AI when its' the computers' turn) could decide if he/she wanted to use one of the the 'counters'...

This is not a bad idea for some other WWII game with a 50+km hex, it certainly seems to be a good compromise between the "paras are not appropriate at this scale" group and the "I want 'em anyway" group (although I expect there would still be disagreement about the type/amount of attack bonuses). However, this is just one extra detail of many that various people would like to see added to the game. The beauty of SC is the simplicity, adding extra "features" would run the risk of making it 'not SC'.

Has anyone heard of the saying "if it aint broke, don't fix it"?

[husky65]

Hmm, let me think ... IIRC, the paraunit itself in the system of COS was vulnerable enough. The terrain bonus of the defender was negated with respect to attacks by *other* forces (which had to be there because the paras could not attack on their lonesome). I guess the paraunit was supposed to distract/surprise/disorganize the defender just enough to allow the other attacking forces to make up for the terrain disadvantages. I think there was also only a certain chance that the terrain bonus for the defender was negated when the paras were involved, but I'm not sure.

Paras don't 'distract/surprise/disorganize', they seize objectives (that do not exist on this scale).

The mission orders for Paras, traditionally, are not 'just mill about blazing away at stuff - that should disorganise them'

Practically, in that game one used the paraunit in combined attacks on fortified positions - especially fortresses which were further sheltered by rivers (Leningrad), or sea (Malta) were difficult to knock out without them.

Difficult to justify historically - Paras were seldom used against fortresses and certainly not on the massive scale that a Corp drop in this game would imply.

[Compassion]

Originally posted by husky65:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Compassion:

I don't see how this adds enough complexity to matter...

Because it needs to be programmed, tested and play balanced, then explained (and justified) to the user.</font>

[BloodyBucket]

To hell with Paratroopers, I want Marines. And lots of 'em.

Semper Fi.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Compassion:

The expalanation is simple enough for Augustus to put forth in just a couple sentance simple enough.

Traditionally an explanation is meant to be sensible, not just short - so far none has been.

As to the rest... That's not what I took your point ot be. Your point has been that it's not useful at this scale and complexity (not in programming it seems, but specifically to game mechanics).

I have several issues with including Para, one of the biggies is that it doesn't work at this scale - I note that no one has yet given examples of it working historically.

Another is that diverting resources (Huberts time) into such a wasted attempt, takes those resources away from more useful work.

Are you kidding? THis question comes up week after week and has since about 2 days afte the forum opened in April! There have been some passionate defenses of the point from both sides on it. It seems to be the hot 'wish list' topic.

The fact that the same few keep asking for the same thing does not constitute a massive groundswell of support, believing this is a common mistake.

No, out of context boy, I never ONCE demanded anything. THe strongest I've come out for on the issue is that it's worth discussing and a couple ideas have been worth consideration.

OK, you've not demanded it, you've requested it be discussed and still can't tell us how it would work or why it is worth including in spite of the scale.

No, specifically at this scale that is their effect and their point. You can't question value startegically and then fall back on operational orders for these things to make a point. Yes, taking a bridge or attack a gun emplacemnt or secure a road or whatever may be a coy's operational orders, but the point is to cause problems for the defenders response to the main attack.

So, in Crete, the Paras were dropped to sow confusion rather than take airfields?

Or was it to cause problems for the defenders response to the main attack?

Confusion at Nijmegen, Arnhem etc were was the Goals rather than the Bridges?

Or was it to cause problems for the defenders response to the main attack (the one up that single road)?

Pegasus Bridge was about confusing the enemy?

Denying him a counter attack?

Nope, it was about securing an exit from Sword beach.

Eben Emal was about confusing the enemy?

Preventing a response?

Or destroying a fortress.

Can you give an example where the objective of a Para drop was to confuse the enemy?

Traditionally the mass of Paratroops and Gliders arriving is a pretty good hint as to what they are up to.

The fact that Paras can cause confusion does not imply its their role, Paratroopers are a strategic asset used to sieze objectives.

Except that Hubert has said specifically that they simply aren't in the game becasue of problems with the supply issue if they were used too far from the front lines.

Can you give a reference to that?

But he's right (if he said it) - nobody had an ability to supply that many troops 100 miles behind enemy lines for a week to a month, its hardly surprising that a reasonably sensible supply mechanism will not handle such an absurd notion.

Nearly all of the suggestions since that time have been to resolve this and give players what they clamor for.

Clamor for? a few malcontents does not = a clamor, if you could actually justify their inclusion historically and show a workable mechanism, then you start looking at playability issues - till then, why not try to actually justify it rather than continue with the 'its cool, I want it' nonsense?

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Husky65:

Clamor for? a few malcontents does not = a clamor...

No, a few malcontents, instead = immense upset to the status quo, resulting, often, in new ways to apprehend the ever-elusive Gestalt.

I favor Para, and at times am malcontent. Yet, this does not have anything to do with whether there should be an aesthetic approach to a game. Let's have them landing all over the hex-based lot!

Besides, a few malcontents, oh, 300-odd years ago NOW = City of Angels, and Chi Town, and N'Awlins, and Scarborough Fair and NY NY, etc, yes? (oh sure... shimmering seaport of Sydney ,in New South Wales, as well... )

[Straha]

SNIP Paras don't 'distract/surprise/disorganize', they seize objectives (that do not exist on this scale).SNIP

SNIP Paras were seldom used against fortresses and certainly not on the massive scale that a Corp drop in this game would imply.SNIP

One last thing before I drop this: the paracorps in COS was not dropped on the objective. What is the airborne corps counter has to be seen as the paras plus all their supply units etc. When the corps (some hexes away from the target) prepared and then participated in an attack, it did not move on the map. I always rationalized this as the abstraction that paras belonging to that corps (but not a corps!) dropped on the target and seized certain objectives which made the main attack coming from other units (without which no paradrop was even possible) easier. It was probably misleading to describe this as "surprise, disorganize" etc.

The paracorps counter then took losses (accounting for the men lost in that operation).

I think the fact that the corps counter itself was not physically moved (in the attack) was supposed to take your concern into account that there were no corps drops on this scale, but instead operations which, though having an effect, would not be visible on the map.

Regarding the fortresses, I would see this as an abstract way of representing glider operations, too. Of course, in a game on such a scale there have to be abstractions, and things always have to be rationalized to make sense. My favorite example for this is that in many games, one can do a limited amount of reserve movements each turn, where whole corps can be taken from the map and reemployed somewhere else. This may look weird. But once one rationalizes this as an abstracted factoring in of railways, it begins to makes perfect sense, and it even explains why one has to drop of the corps next to a (connected) city. So, in a way railways are incorporated without them actually being there on the map.

Paratroopers can be integrated in a similar way. What has to be avoided on this scale is only the oversimplistic (and wrong) approach where really a corps-counter is somehow magically moved behind enemy lines.

Straha

[ August 09, 2002, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

[husky65]

Originally posted by Straha:

SNIP Paras don't 'distract/surprise/disorganize', they seize objectives (that do not exist on this scale).SNIP

SNIP Paras were seldom used against fortresses and certainly not on the massive scale that a Corp drop in this game would imply.SNIP

One last thing before I drop this: the paracorps in COS was not dropped on the objective. What is the airborne corps counter has to be seen as the paras plus all their supply units etc. When the corps (some hexes away from the target) prepared and then participated in an attack, it did not move on the map. I always rationalized this as the abstraction that paras belonging to that corps (but not a corps!) dropped on the target and seized certain objectives which made the main attack coming from other units (without which no paradrop was even possible) easier. It was probably misleading to describe this as "surprise, disorganize" etc.

The paracorps counter then took losses (accounting for the men lost in that operation).

I think the fact that the corps counter itself was not physically moved (in the attack) was supposed to take your concern into account that there were no corps drops on this scale, but instead operations which, though having an effect, would not be visible on the map.

Regarding the fortresses, I would see this as an abstract way of representing glider operations, too. Of course, in a game on such a scale there have to be abstractions, and things always have to be rationalized to make sense. My favorite example for this is that in many games, one can do a limited amount of reserve movements each turn, where whole corps can be taken from the map and reemployed somewhere else. This may look weird. But once one rationalizes this as an abstracted factoring in of railways, it begins to makes perfect sense, and it even explains why one has to drop of the corps next to a (connected) city. So, in a way railways are incorporated without them actually being there on the map.

Paratroopers can be integrated in a similar way. What has to be avoided on this scale is only the oversimplistic (and wrong) approach where really a corps-counter is somehow magically moved behind enemy lines.

Straha

[husky65]

Originally posted by husky65:

main attack coming from other units (without which no paradrop was even possible) easier. It was probably misleading to describe this as "surprise, disorganize" etc.

The paracorps counter then took losses (accounting for the men lost in that operation).

So you acknowledge that Para ops will be wiped out if a link up does not occur with the main force, accept that it should be abstracted, yet will not accept that it HAS been abstracted already? - you just want to add complexity.

Given that your goal appears to be simply to add complexity, why not buy HoI on release? one of the big strengths of SC is that it is simple - you played the demo and knew that, why are you complaining now?

Regarding the fortresses, I would see this as an abstract way of representing glider operations, too. Of course, in a game on such a scale there have to be abstractions, and things always have to be rationalized to make sense.

You are going to have to explain that one, the explaination doesn't make sense to me.

Paratroopers can be integrated in a similar way. What has to be avoided on this scale is only the oversimplistic (and wrong) approach where really a corps-counter is somehow magically moved behind enemy lines.

Straha

As noted, additional complexity is not a goal worth persuing for its own sake.

[Goober]

Hey. Paratroopers should be included. Hey remember the paratroopers in High Command. Boy that brings back some fond memories.

[pzgndr]

Except that Hubert has said specifically that they simply aren't in the game becasue of problems with the supply issue if they were used too far from the front lines. Nearly all of the suggestions since that time have been to resolve this and give players what they clamor for.

I don't think supply has been the issue, nor should be. Normal supply rules should apply; if the paras can't sieze an undefended resource or link up with ground forces, they should suffer the consequences.

Air resupply missions for isolated forces, paras or others, could be considered. German 6 Army at Stalingrad comes to mind, and others.

As always, it has been amusing since day 1 to watch this para debate go back and forth. It shall be interesting to hear from Hubert some day which way he intends to go with this.

[Straha]

So you acknowledge that Para ops will be wiped out if a link up does not occur with the main force, accept that it should be abstracted, yet will not accept that it HAS been abstracted already? - you just want to add complexity.

Nope, I, too, do not want complexity for complexity's sake. But I think this adds to gameplay. For if we had the feature, we would have to decide where to employ our limited resources of paras. Now that it is abstractly factored in, it is the same on every section of the front.

Let me put it like this: if Hubert had wanted, he could have left out the tac-bombing aspect of the airfleets and only have strategic bombers bombing cities and fighters countering them. The tac-bombers were then to be considered abstractly factored into the ground combat (maybe by a value depending on historical tac-bomber output/year). Why would this subtract gameplay value? Because it deprives you of the possibility to decide where to employ and concentrate your airfleets (when they are used as tac-bombers).

Given that your goal appears to be simply to add complexity, why not buy HoI on release? one of the big strengths of SC is that it is simple - you played the demo and knew that, why are you complaining now?

Why do you conclude I'm complaining? We were discussing aspects of SC and suggestions for improvements etc since the beginning of this board. Until now, this was considered welcome. In any case, I see this issue rather as a suggestion for a possible SCII, than something to be implemented in a patch for SC.

Regarding HoI: I sure will buy it, but not "instead" of SC. I expect HoI to be a completely different kind of game which can hardly be compared to SC at all.

You are going to have to explain that one, the explaination doesn't make sense to me.

I thought of the capturing of Eben Emael, an example where gliders were used in the capturing of a fortress. A counter may have a parachute on it, but it could be seen as comprising parachute as well as glider operations. Btw in my original comment about how things were handled in COS, I actually meant "fortified position" in the broad sense, anyway, and not "fortress" in the narrow sense.

Straha

[husky65]

Originally posted by Straha:

Nope, I, too, do not want complexity for complexity's sake. But I think this adds to gameplay. For if we had the feature, we would have to decide where to employ our limited resources of paras. Now that it is abstractly factored in, it is the same on every section of the front.

Yet nobody has been able to justify their inclusion on this scale - the whole argument boils down to 'I want to play with Paras' in spite of the mass of operational and strategic historical evidence that shows they don't operate at this scale - you want to choose where to use them, yet cannot point to a single historical example where Paras were massed on the sort of scale required to get a single counter in this game.

Let me put it like this: if Hubert had wanted, he could have left out the tac-bombing aspect of the airfleets and only have strategic bombers bombing cities and fighters countering them. The tac-bombers were then to be considered abstractly factored into the ground combat (maybe by a value depending on historical tac-bomber output/year). Why would this subtract gameplay value? Because it deprives you of the possibility to decide where to employ and concentrate your airfleets (when they are used as tac-bombers).

And because Tac bombers historically were used for interdiction way behind the lines, Huberts right here, Paras were not used the way you want them (and should be left out), Tac Bombers were used the way Hubert has implemented them - the allies routinely sent Fighter bombers off to shoot up trains and vehicular traffic hundreds of miles from the front..

Why do you conclude I'm complaining?

To paraphase Bill Hicks, because you are.

Regarding HoI: I sure will buy it, but not "instead" of SC. I expect HoI to be a completely different kind of game which can hardly be compared to SC at all.

I probably will too, so I don't see why you want to add complexity to SC, you have yet to give a reasonable justification for adding Paras, all they will do is add complexity when simplicity is one of SCs great strength and you have a more complex WW2 game on the way already.

I thought of the capturing of Eben Emael, an example where gliders were used in the capturing of a fortress. A counter may have a parachute on it, but it could be seen as comprising parachute as well as glider operations. Btw in my original comment about how things were handled in COS, I actually meant "fortified position" in the broad sense, anyway, and not "fortress" in the narrow sense.

OK, I see what you mean, Gliders were seldom used for that sort of thing (certainly not on the scale of this game) and using airborne units to give bonuses in attacking fortifications on this scale is pretty hard to justify in game terms.