U-boats and starving britain

[SMG42]

Ah ok. But I'm not discussing MPP, and never discussed them

I want to know how the reduction of operational supply used by military units is portrayed. I want to know what a sub or a Hudson can do against the ships bringing ammos & food to german units who have landed near London.

[pzgndr]

I want to know how the reduction of operational supply used by military units is portrayed.

Have you not played SC1 and you're asking for a complete rehashing of the supply rules?

Regarding oversea supply, we have said everything that can be said on the subject. Supply is abstract and there are no convoys to manage or interdict. Operational supply of units is traced to a supply source, either a controlled city or port or HQ. To reduce unit supply, you have to reduce the supply source(s).

[Todd Treadway]

This whole discussion has made me wish yet again that SC2 would use a naval zone system similar to that used by Clash of Steel. Naval interdiction of supply could be handled abstractly, uncertain naval engagements, etc.

I'm sure Hubert has thought about this a lot more than me though. Maybe the scripting thing will allow a simple way to simulate the Germans getting cut out of supply?

Also, what if ALL ports had some script saying that if there were enough opposing naval units within a certain distance it would lower the supply value of the port? Thus, instead of attacking the port you could set up a blockade. This would also allow Germany to lower the supply level of British ports using the same script. Haven't thought this through, but would it make sense?

[SMG42]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I want to know how the reduction of operational supply used by military units is portrayed.

Have you not played SC1 and you're asking for a complete rehashing of the supply rules?

Regarding oversea supply, we have said everything that can be said on the subject. Supply is abstract and there are no convoys to manage or interdict. Operational supply of units is traced to a supply source, either a controlled city or port or HQ. To reduce unit supply, you have to reduce the supply source(s). </font>

[pzgndr]

I'm not trying to corner you or the developer

No problem. I just couldn't see where this was heading after going full circle.

Maybe the scripting thing will allow a simple way to simulate the Germans getting cut out of supply?

Again, I don't see where this would be needed other than Malta Effect, and we have that now. We have tweaked and adjusted these particular scripts a few times now, and may yet do so again based on player feedback and suggestions. Wait and see how this works and then think about other possible applications.

Since supply sources can also be considered supply stockpiles/depots, it's not clear what immediate effect a temporary cutoff should have. If you want greater realism in a game/simulation, then you necessarily have to add more complexity to it. In Schwerpunkt's Anglo-German War, we did this and with advanced supply rules players have to manage transporting supply points into captured ports (subject to naval escort, enemy search&destroy, air bombings, etc.), but I do not recommend such a system for a game such as SC2. Simple and abstract is good, and allows you to play fast and have some fun. The alternative is not always desireable.

[SeaMonkey]

I'm all for simplicity, so if scripts can be set up in context with Todd's suggestion, then that is good enough.

If not, then perhaps we can have a reciprocal effect that bombarding naval units have on occupying combat units.

That is, when a combat or air unit attacks a resource occupying combat unit there should be some chance that the supply infrastructure would also take a hit.(I know, I've suggested this before)

Of course it(resource, city, port) would slowly recover from turn to turn that no additional damage is initiated as repairs are implemented.

Which leads me into another suggestion. Perhaps resource recovery and repair should be subjected to a MPP investment?

[Edwin P.]

That is, when a combat or air unit attacks a resource occupying combat unit there should be some chance that the supply infrastructure would also take a hit.(I know, I've suggested this before)

I will hold off on making any comments until I have had a chance to play the game, but to elaborate on SeaMonkey's idea I would say that the chance of the infrastructure being hit (for non-bombers) should be related to the strength of the occupying unit.

Example: 10 Str = 0% damage to infrastructure, 9 Str = 10% damage to infrastructure,... 1 Str = 90% damage to infrastructure.

This would reflect the fact that weakened units are not nearly as effective.

[Desert Dave]

SM:

That is, when a combat or air unit attacks a resource occupying combat unit there should be some chance that the supply infrastructure would also take a hit.(I know, I've suggested this before)

It does.

If the resource is reduced, THEN supply is necessarily reduced (... and somewhat variable, depending on - IF an HQ is nearby).

SM:

Of course it(resource, city, port) would slowly recover from turn to turn that no additional damage is initiated as repairs are implemented.

The resource does slowly recover, as with SC-1.

SM:

Which leads me into another suggestion. Perhaps resource recovery and repair should be subjected to a MPP investment?

There IS a cost.

You pay it out as you go, since you are collecting LESS MPP's from the previous damage that has been inflicted.

Let's not, please, make this more complicated than it needs be.

Having played it, IMHO, the supply is modeled exactly right. :cool:

Specific scripting can "tweak" this to be more how you might like it in certain theaters.

For instance, I have made scripts for Axis occupation of Crete, and wouldn't mind seeing one for Trondheim port, IE, an Axis interdiction of the Murmansk/Archangel convoys.

If you wouldn't mind something as that, then you can do it too.

___________________________

EP:

I will hold off on making any comments until I have had a chance to play the game...

Good idea, because the game just flows along real smooth and even, effervescent... like cool mountain streams, you'll see.

EP:

I would say that the chance of the infrastructure being hit (for non-bombers) should be related to the strength of the occupying unit.

Example: 10 Str = 0% damage to infrastructure, 9 Str = 10% damage to infrastructure,... 1 Str = 90% damage to infrastructure.

This would reflect the fact that weakened units are not nearly as effective.

When you are shore bombarding, what does the unit size have to do with how much damage is inflicted on the resource? :confused:

One lone sentry soldier OR a whole Army, what can either of these do to deflect those big-gun shells raining down?

You have (... editable) port defense, which would account for those shore batteries and other bulwarks which WOULD actually make a difference.

[SeaMonkey]

Alright DD, I stand corrected......belay all those requests, I forgot they had been accomplished, my apologies HC.

I have the feel, since inception, that SC2 was the strategic game to end all others.....

excepting of course the one I make.

And for the operational aspects, another of my fav. scales, there exists the Panther engine.

Life is good.

[Desert Dave]

Life is good.

You got it right, Southwest Surfer,

And here pretty doggone soon,

It's gonna be... better than ONLY good,

It's gonna be a bitchin' blitzin' blast!

I have the feel, since inception, that SC2 was the strategic game to end all others.....

excepting of course the one I make.

Looking forward to it... don't forget the K-rations that MUST be sent by way of the Red Ball Express!

JK! SM!

But yer right about one thing.

SC-2 is gonna be awful hard to beat.

For years and years and... :cool:

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by Todd Treadway:

This whole discussion has made me wish yet again that SC2 would use a naval zone system similar to that used by Clash of Steel. Naval interdiction of supply could be handled abstractly, uncertain naval engagements, etc.

:mad:

As far as I know, this (SC2) kind of resource/convoy

system has never been implemented in a strategic-

level game before. I dislike (ahem) seazones

because it's all binary: in-the-zone/out-of-the-zone,

sink-or-survive. You don't get any of the stuff

you'll see in SC2, with uboats sneaking around

trying to find "juicy" hunting spots while the

enemy tries to locate them. You really can't (?)

do fog-of-war with seazones-in COS I knew whether

the enemy had subs in box X or not and could move

assets there to try to sink them (at which point

the random number degenerator replaces strategy).

Seazones just greatly simplify things to the point

of ennui. Plus I'm planning to do a Battle of the

Atlantic mod once this Puppy (tm JJR) is out the

door, so don't even HINT that you're trying to

ruin my fun! :cool:

[SeaMonkey]

It sounds like seazones suck, I'm with you JD2.

The whole dynamics of "The Search" are completely undermined, one, if not the most compelling feature of high seas skirmishes.

[jon_j_rambo]

Before the TCC (Terif Cookie Cutter) took over SC, buying subs was quite fun in SC. Get those German U-Boats to level 3 or more, and you'd dropped the RN in seconds