Finns & Russian navy

[Stalin's Organ]

Last night I tried invading Russia for the first time, as a result of discussions on this board.

It was quite fun - I hadn't reached Moscow by the time teh game ended, but hey.....

I was pleased to see the Finns joining, but not so pleased to see that they can't be reinforced or new units built in Finland. That doesn't seem reasonable given the historical context.

A number of German units fought in Finland, which I guess can be simulated by shipping a Corps there, but I really think ther Finns should at least be able to reinforce their own units.

Also as an aside - please ditch the Russain fleet!!

Sure they had a couple of old battleships, etc., but to make them useful seaworthy units in SC is a joke!!

The main russian naval effort in the Baltic area was submarines, and they may have lsot as many subs as they sank ships - 186 of each. The Gulf of Finland was a brick wall once the Germans controled the southern coast, and major surface operations by the Russian fleet were never a serious consideration.

IMO a better soultion would be to make Leningrad a fortification (if it isn't already - I didn't notice), and consider them included in the effects of that fortification.

Sevastopol as well - I didn't notice any Russian naval units down there tho' - ditch any ships if they exist and consider them included in the fortification.

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

I was pleased to see the Finns joining, but not so pleased to see that they can't be reinforced or new units built in Finland.

They can be reinforced, but the units are so far from their city (which is only at level 5) that they are extremely low on supplies, which is why you can't reinforce them. You'll have to move them back towards better supply. Or break through Leningrad so you have an uninterrupted series of hexes from Helsinki to Berlin, and then their city can improve and disperse more supplies to troops further away.

- Chris

[pzgndr]

They can be reinforced, but the units are so far from their city (which is only at level 5) that they are extremely low on supplies, which is why you can't reinforce them.

This needs to be looked at. Without getting into a complicated supply discussion, if units can get someplace then it stands to reason that their supply trains can also. Maybe limited supply and reinforcements relative to being within range or a city or HQ, but not zero. I'd prefer to see armor ZOCs which can cut off supply lines and operational movements, rather than arbitrary supply ranges. Watching units die on the vine simply because they're a couple of hexes beyond the normal supply range is frustrating.

Another option is to provide low-value HQ units for some of the minor allies, primarily Finland and Rumania, which would improve their supply situation and provide some historical leadership since German HQs aren't allowed to. Maybe we can do this with the scenario editor. If not, maybe there's still time for another tweak to make this happen.

And what's the deal if minor allies are lost in combat? It appears Germany can't buy any new minor units. Do replacements magically appear later, or are they lost forever? Just wondering. There should be a way for Germany to buy new minor units.

[pzgndr]

I was hoping to hear something about builds for axis minors, and maybe about HQs for Finland and Rumania. Any comments?

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

I was hoping to hear something about builds for axis minors, and maybe about HQs for Finland and Rumania. Any comments?

Unecessary clutter, at least in the initial version of SC.

Since any Minor can -- theoretically, be aligned on either the Axis or Allies side, you would have to have all those flags on each Major Power's Purchase Screen. Do you want to provide a separate Purchase Screen for every Minor?

And once a minor's units are eliminated, why would you replace them? For the same cost, you could purchase the equivalent Major Power's unit, which would be more effective due to better HQs (... kind of a Catch 22... maybe Yossarian can chime in here)

[pzgndr]

And once a minor's units are eliminated, why would you replace them?

Heck, just disband the minors and replace them all with crack Wehrmacht units. Kinda defeats the purpose, though. If SC had force pool limits, then the additional axis minors become more important. Politically, the minors would do something to maintain their forces or else they would leave the alliance. Get too low and receive a warning message. Lose all units and then watch out for partisan uprisings and liberation attempts.

Maybe the game could withhold the minor's MPPs until eliminated units are replaced? But that's too rigid. I'd rather see the minor units available for purchase, probably at less cost due to their lower value, and let the German player decide whether to maintain his allies or risk losing them. That's a realistic issue to deal with.

We haven't heard from Hubert and the Beta Boys about whether this is already addressed in the game somehow. If minor units are a one-time shot and lost permanently if eliminated in combat, then this is very simplistic. There should be a way to replace minors and a compelling reason to do so.

[Canuck_para]

I like the idea of making the minor units cheaper to produce otherwise why build them. I like the character it adds, having Hungarians etc marching through the Russian countryside. This means that the Canadian units can't be rebuilt either I guess. Now this could make me rethink buying the game. :mad: Well, not really but I will be thinking bad thoughts about Battlefront when ever I lose a Canadian unit.

[Straha]

Can one really simply disband the minor armies? (I never checked.) I hope not.

As we've heard, there will probably be no more changes before the release, but somewhere down the road I would like to be able to produce minor armies. The best frame for this would probably be to have not only MPP pools for the majors (Germany, Italy etc.), but also a seperate "catch all" pool for minors. This way, you would be forced to spend some amount of MPPs on the minors. Of course, I know that the majors need the MPPs, e.g. Germany from the Romanian Ploesti oilfields. But we could have something like 20% of every minor's MPP going into the minors pool. This should be enough to rebuy some Finish or Canadian army every once in a while.

Straha

[Canuck_para]

Maybe the computer should buy a unit every once in a while by subtracting money from your pool when the turn begins. This may sound extreme, but the minor allies did not turn over every cent they had for the Germans to produce whatever they wanted. The same could apply to the Canadian units. These nations still had national goals that can not be completed ignored.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Straha:

As we've heard, there will probably be no more changes before the release, but somewhere down the road I would like to be able to produce minor armies. The best frame for this would probably be to have not only MPP pools for the majors (Germany, Italy etc.), but also a seperate "catch all" pool for minors. This way, you would be forced to spend some amount of MPPs on the minors.

Sure! I like it.

You could have a separate entry on the main screen, say -- Minor Country Purchases .

And those that have aligned with you would be active, and the others grayed-out.

A percentage -- 20-30% sounds about right, of their MPPs would be automatically assigned to this pool.

I agree with those who want the minor units to remain viable throughout the game. So, let's do it! :cool:

[Hubert Cater]

Unecessary clutter, at least in the initial version of SC.

Agreed considering the design. Now if I was using force pools and limited numbers of purchases for each country then it would make more sense and usefull, otherwise why purchase for a minor when you can just purchase a major unit as you've pointed out.

What you get in this game is the resources of the minor and an inital bonus of their minor units to supplement your existing forces (one of the benefits of letting some of these countries join as opposed to attacking them).

I think the rest of the ideas are good and make perfect sense, but would be better suited for the more advanced version while the current implementation will stay the same for the reasons stated above.

Hope that helps,

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

Heck, just disband the minors and replace them all with crack Wehrmacht units.

Minors cannot be disbanded

[jaym]

Speaking of the Finnish Army - why are these units equal in quality to those of say Rumania or Italy? And for that matter, why is a new Russian Army equal in value to a new German Army (or whatever unit)? Could various armies start with different experience levels to reflect their historical levels? I love the game but just can't get over this aspect - everything else I can see or make sense of.

[Straha]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Heck, just disband the minors and replace them all with crack Wehrmacht units.

Minors cannot be disbanded</font>

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by jaym:

Speaking of the Finnish Army - why are these units equal in quality to those of say Rumania or Italy? And for that matter, why is a new Russian Army equal in value to a new German Army (or whatever unit)? Could various armies start with different experience levels to reflect their historical levels? I love the game but just can't get over this aspect - everything else I can see or make sense of.

Jay,

The differences you seek can be found in a nation's HQ units.

[pzgndr]

Minors cannot be disbanded

OK, I stand corrected.

I understand no rebuilds of minors for now, but I think my original point is valid. If the Germans commit a minor's army to combat and has it devastated, there should be a political risk of losing that minor's support. Note Rumania's complaints following Stalingrad. So there's an incentive to rebuild minor units.

To minimize clutter, maybe add just a single minor corps and army icon to the builds? If built in Hungary, then its Hungarian, etc. Let Germany decide whether to spend MPPs on minor rebuilds or risk losing the minor's support (loss of MPPs, withdrawal from alliance, partisans, etc.) Same could be done with Britain/Canada. This would add an interesting political twist to the game if you choose to neglect your minor partners.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

This would add an interesting political twist to the game if you choose to neglect your minor partners.

Or, our Major or Minor real-life partners...

Typical moment in-the-life:

THIS? is what you've been doing all this time? And what is that little thing that looks like a bug on wheels?

(... long pause, eyes like quartz, fists on hips)

You know what? It's about time we re-painted the kitchen.

(And so -- true, my kitchen is now sky blue... )

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

OK, you guys will soon realize im a broken record when it comes to this, the finnish army was not inferiior to the russians. Especially not in 1939-1942. I also agree that the minors need HQ units.

But when i say this i mean only some of the minors. Canada, They should either be able to get HQ's or attach tham selves to British HQ's. Other Minors like, Hungary,and Finland should produce their own units and Hq's That would make some minors stand out from others.

[jaym]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

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

Speaking of the Finnish Army - why are these units equal in quality to those of say Rumania or Italy? And for that matter, why is a new Russian Army equal in value to a new German Army (or whatever unit)? Could various armies start with different experience levels to reflect their historical levels? I love the game but just can't get over this aspect - everything else I can see or make sense of.

Jay,

The differences you seek can be found in a nation's HQ units.</font>

[jaym]

The differences you seek can be found in a nation's HQ units.[/QB]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Some units like the partisans, or finns needs a special ability, this special ability my friends should be: HIT AND RUN tactics. After an attack is made they should be able to 'beat a very brave retreat' back to safety. Your thoughts? :confused:

[MrWinterbottom]

I have one thought.... Don't finn me...

[LC-]

Hit and run tactics wouldnt fit into the scope of this game. Those tactics are more for small bands, not entire army or tank units.

And everyone needs to stop fretting about the finnish units. The game sounds like it might almost be ready to go gold according to some of the posts Hubert and SuperTed have left lately. I for one would think the game is fine as is so dont worry bout the finns Hubert.

[watchdog]

How "strategic" were partisans? Alot of things these guys left out on the basis that some things were too "tactical". For example paratroops. I do believe that paratroop drops were far more strategic than partisan uprisings. Someone change my mind, please.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

i wont change ur mind if ur right.

You are right LC, hit and run doesnt fit into the game