Allied Armor

[ev]

Originally posted by ebitt:

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Historical units were not all tank or infantry by hte time the allies came back to Europe. They were invariably a mix....

Good Point! The US produced 86,000 tanks but only fielded 16 Armor Divisions. The majority of the tanks were in seperate tank battalions at Army and Corps level which were attached to the Infantry/Airborne Divisions. As you pointed out, raising the Tank Attack and Tank Defense value for a US Corps from 1 to 2 might be overkill, but a raise from 1 to 1.2 might be appropriate. </font>

[SeaMonkey]

There you go ev...good one...proper management.

Let us not forget that because of the initially dominant Boche military, that "proper management" leads to a well rounded experienced force.

I have developed a new strategic initiative for the Axis that doesn't terminate the game with all but the USA and UK in Canada being the final disposition.

It is indeed exactly as ev has alluded to, a managed minor victory for the Axis, defending Festung Europe against the 3 major Allies.

We all know how small the set of errors is for an Axis victory, this strategy allows a little more breathing space.

It is founded on that fire brigade elite overstrengthed group of highly experienced German units operating to the trouble spots coupled with long range surveillance.

How do you obtain such a group whose home base is usually in Russia? You figure it out, take a page out of ev's book.

Now come to think of it, USA needs another Para unit also, remove the engineers.

[Scrogdog]

Nope. I wanna see a system where each strength point equals something - a battalion or a brigade/regiment or some other "real world" unit.

Sounds like that old game Hitler's War. It was an interesting concept indeed.

There would need to be something like point limits. And the scope of HW meant that armor expoitation was handled in a different way than would be possible on SC's scale. Yes, they are both grand strategy, but a HW hex was much larger than either SC1's hexes or SC2's squares (Italy and Poland were two hexes each). Which begs the question; what would be the mechanic to allow armor expliotations?

This will certainly not happen in SC2.

[Guest Mike]

Hitlers war is a great game - there's a computerised version of it at http://homepage.eircom.net/~monalisa/HitlersWar/ - no AI or PBEM tho - 'net or LAN or hotseat only.

In it each strength point doesn't necessarily represent anything specific, but you can allocate up to 10 land points to an army group IIRC

for those not familiar with the game here's a shots from the web site - as you can see the scale is quite a bit different from SC2!!

1939 -

note the compositions of the armies on the left side of the screen - 4th army and army group souoth contain all the panzers and the LW, AG West contains jsut enough to protect teh Frontier and AG Nth is a small garrison for east Prussia, and yest the titles are a bit anachronistic, but the mechanism works fabulously!!

IMO armour exploitaion would be fairly simple even at the SC2 scale - you'd allow armour to move 1 extra hex as long as it passed a test of some sort or defeated an enemy....and each time it did such a move it would lose a little effectiveness and the chances of doing it again would be lower....but you might allow 1-2-3 hexes before testing?

[SeaMonkey]

Well of course this is a great concept, ala Norm Koger's TOAW. Easily adaptable to any scale, allowing for customized units, each having certain unique actions/features depending on their TO&Es.

Unfortunately this will not be WaW, but possibly a version down the road. At least we have a designer that has the know how, a great set of betas, and a congenial and contributing community.

I don't have a lot of gaming time, but it is a part of my life. Because of the limitations and variety of possibilities I needed to throw in with one developer, make a commitment and stick with it.

Isn't that how humans make progress? Sure, I won't agree with every little step, but life is about compromise and better to be flexible, open-minded and positive to get as close to the finish product as possible.

And after all, the real fun is getting there.

[Guest Mike]

no it's nothing like TOAW - Hitlers war allows you to change the content of your units - want to shift the panzers to the west? Then you take them from the army groups they are with and put them in AG West.

TOAW has fixed TOE's - a platoon or a company or a division has a set number of rifle squads, HMG's, AT guns, etc - you can't change their makeup during the game.

and yes I'm well aware that SC2 is nothing like it, nor is the competition.

Which is a damned shame IMO.

[ September 05, 2007, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[arado234]

The best exploitation phase i ever saw in any game is third reich.In one move you can wipe out all of russia if the russian player isnt paying attention.Not possible in sc2 though.Although with the W.a.W.it sounds like armour will be able to act more like armour?

[targul]

Certainly not on a 3rd Reich scale though. The supply is the key to that armour exploitation and our supply doesnt eliminated units.

Actually being OOS in the present game seems to do very little. I am hoping it has more effect in the new WAW though.

[jon_j_rambo]

Lack of supply should increase in degree by the amount of turns OOS. You can leave a unit in the desert forever...should get ugly instead.

[Exel]

Pardon me but I don't see a problem with the original topic. Want more armor/subs/bombers that the queue gives you? Use soft build limits and just pay some more to get them.

[ebitt]

From ev's post:

Historically German panzer units did not have quite enough armor because they could not build enough armor to replace their losses...

1943 was the only year that Germany did not build more tanks than they lost (Built 6,000- Lost 6,400). I should say full year, because in 45 they lost them all.

[ev]

Originally posted by ebitt:

From ev's post:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Historically German panzer units did not have quite enough armor because they could not build enough armor to replace their losses...

1943 was the only year that Germany did not build more tanks than they lost (Built 6,000- Lost 6,400). I should say full year, because in 45 they lost them all. </font>

[SeaMonkey]

Not always do they perform better ev. Half strength teched units with full experience tend to have more staying power in combat and do produce enemies losses to the same degree as full strength units without tech or experience, sometimes more.