SeaMonkey Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Have I gone nuts? I put a unit next to an entrenched=6 or x enemy unit so I have full intel, then unleash my bombers. What happens?????? No entrenchment reduction, it remains at 6. Conversely using an AF, entrenchment reduction. Did I miss something here? Has that feature been dismissed. We had it in SC1, the manual states, page 92, 4th paragraph, a -2 entrenchment reduction. I've noticed in the mods I'm playing also. What happened to this feature???? Anyone??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted January 27, 2007 Author Share Posted January 27, 2007 Please Hubert, give me my bombers back..... no naval spotting, now no entrenchment reduction, WtH???? I feel neutered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Bombers reduce entrenchment on units when they actually hit a unit... remember the change here was to have bombers a bit more strategic in nature then they were in SC1, so hits on units stationed on a resource are a lot less likely to happen until you get heavy bombers. The introduced naval spotting bug will be corrected for the next patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted January 27, 2007 Author Share Posted January 27, 2007 I'm OK with that, but I thought they were named Strategic Bombers in the original SC. Now they're just Bombers. My thoughts are that if they represent the faction of an airwing that has the level and dive bombers in it(remember its naval effectiveness and our numerous discussions) then Bombers should at least have the effectiveness of AFs as far as entrenchment reduction. Think about it. If other units' attacks enable entrenchment reduction, what is it about the firepower/ordinance delivered by bombers that excludes them from the same effectiveness, possibly greater, as in SC1? Where was I when this discussion happened? Must have had my head up my......well let's don't go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Without a 2nd Bomber type, i.e. to split Strategic Bombers from medium/dive bombers there were some compromises made such as those you outlined and thus the decision to just go with the name Bombers... but a second Bomber type would probably resolve all these issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 HC, you are such a tease. Now how about them artillery units? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n0kn0k Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Radar units would also be nice! Acting like HQ's, modifying intercepts by fighters and bombing accuracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 Not my fault HC, your the one that brought up the second bomber type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Anti-Air against fighters wouldn't hurt either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konigs Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Yeah, I have to agree, aa should be a tech for units as well as cities. Germans had excellent light aa early in the war, especially noted in France of '40. Americans also had much aa in the war. Could help even out the seeming advantage of mass air. Also like the idea of tac bomber vs strat bomber. Would add some interesting tactics and strategy shifts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Yep, maybe a 1.07 addition? Some new unit pieces? @Hubert --- What's on your mind for some new features? Defect fixes loooks light currrently? What's up for 1.06? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 You started this Hubert, I'm innocent. Maybe you should thing about an add on module, maybe with hexes, the suggestions above, pass through naval movements, etc. I would like to see some research categories for rocks, paper, scissors attributes. For example, if we add aa to units then ground attack needs to be researchable for air units, AF and TAC. Did I mention the inclusion of Artillery? Now this wouldn't be for free, what's a fair price forum? Hey if GG can do it with "A World Divided", why not Hubert, who created a much better game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bromley Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Excepting the increase in volume of tactical ground attacks over the course of the war, was there any real change in the deadliness? So although an individual attack in 1939 was probably nothing compared to one in 1944, the defences of the target units presumably increased. I wouldn't want to have to spend turns making small upgrades that would, IRL, filter down to the units rather than require a massive refit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_TAR Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Can we get a DANCING GIRL unit to improve moral of the troops. yes...I'm making fun!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vveedd Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Originally posted by Hubert Cater: Without a 2nd Bomber type, i.e. to split Strategic Bombers from medium/dive bombers there were some compromises made such as those you outlined and thus the decision to just go with the name Bombers... but a second Bomber type would probably resolve all these issues I hate to tell you but I suggested this to you long time ago, when SC2 was in development. Still think that is very good idea but if you divide bombers to strategic and dive you must , of course, make air fleets as fighter fleets only and they should be just for dog fight, intercept and escort. And I have one question about entrenchment – I see that in 1.05 patch when you put unit in fortifications it has immediately entrenchment at level 3. Why units do not gain immediately higher entrenchment level when you put them in forest or on mountains? This will logical if you ask me – if unit is in forest it has immediately better position for fight against units on clear terrain. Same case is for mountain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 vveedd, why do you hate to tell me this? Good ideas on the other terrain as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Don't they already get a defensive bonus for being in forest or mountain? Don't think you should tack on an automatic entrenchment. You still got to dig the holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n0kn0k Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Originally posted by Lars: Don't they already get a defensive bonus for being in forest or mountain? Don't think you should tack on an automatic entrenchment. You still got to dig the holes. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Trees are still better than open ground. +1 modifier? Depends on the tree, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 3, 2007 Author Share Posted February 3, 2007 Yeh, you may have to dig the holes, fill the sandbags, cut the timber, but remember a SC turn provides ample time to accomplish the task, IRL. Since we have these immediate entrenchments, I want the Bombers e-reduction capability back, Leningrad is a tough nut to crack when the Red Army engineers have prepared the area. Its taking me all summer with two army groups and all the German airforces, minors and Italians too. I know, I know, I'm a bit short on tech, but.....that's the breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 - units in forests and mountains HAVE already an immediately better position: represented by the defensive bonuses these terrains provide - Bombers also DO reduce entrenchment of units in fortifications built by engineers (like in the example around Leningrad: attack a fortification with bombers and entrenchment is reduced by 2). Only when attacking the more powerful fortresses bombers don´t reduce entrenchment (only existing ones in Fall Weiss: Maginot, Gibraltar, Malta and Sevastopol) which makes the pre-war built fortresses harder to crack - just how it should be - than the fast assembled fortifications from engineers at the frontline . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vveedd Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Originally posted by Lars: Don't they already get a defensive bonus for being in forest or mountain? Don't think you should tack on an automatic entrenchment. You still got to dig the holes. I agree. I didn’t mean that unit should get immediately maximum entrenchment. It should get immediately level 1 in forest and level 2 on mountain for example. And this will represent covers made by Mother Nature (rocks, caves, trees on the ground etc.) which you can find much easily in forests and mountains then clear terrain. Following entrenchment levels will represent cover made by humans, of course. Originally posted by Hubert Cater: vveedd, why do you hate to tell me this? Good ideas on the other terrain as well. Thx Hubert. Maybe is now good moment to remind you for one more my suggestion suggested in that developer time – to select specific target for interceptions. I would like to see some kind of queue for air fleets in which I can put interception target. For example- I have only one air fleet and I want to intercept only air attacks on unit at capitol, not air attacks on units around it. Originally posted by Terif: - units in forests and mountains HAVE already an immediately better position: represented by the defensive bonuses these terrains provideUnits in fortifications have the same defense bonus, as I know, and besides that they still have entrenchment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts