ETA on 1.5?

[Baron]

I was just wondering do we have an ETA on the next patch? I hate to have more than 1 version of game going at the same time. I like what I've heard on the improvements for the next patch and again I'd like to put my 2 cents worth in on what I'd like to see but still hasn't been addressed.

Surface Raiders - ships on the convoy lanes should have a chance on inflicting casualties. Heck during the early part of the war most U Boat attacks were at night and on the surface.

Air and Naval forces should never, never, never be able to destroy the last factor of any ground unit. We've all been over this before. Is the game realistic? Is it historical? Point is the name of the game is STRATEGIC COMMAND. On the strategic level in the 1940's it was impossible to devestate a unit the size of a corps or army to the point of its destruction using air or naval forces.

Ok I know its more like 10 cents worth now. Still enjoying the heck out of the game!!

Thanks HC!

[vector]

I agree with your comments and I am torn between that this is just a game and I want it to be a realistic historical recreation.

Air units should drive down morale, do some damage and dramatically slow down units, but that is all. Not completely annihilate them. (They pretty much wipe out whole units today but they didn't have smart bombs and night vision back then)

I hit a transport with 2 upgraded Battleship groups and a cruiser group. All it did was 5 points of damage where in reality one task force would have sunk a transport task force on contact. Unprotected Transports should be destroyed on freaken contact!!!

If you are making a list, germany should not be allowed sea lion for at least a year after france. Where do they get 10,000 boats to ship 45 german Division to England in a couple of weeks. This is total bull****!

[ChrisND]

I propose an alternative; introduce a hard build limit for amphib transports, which can be raised by researching the amphib tech.

This allows countries to start with different amount of amphib transports available, but they spend the money to get more. Also, it allows the amphib movement range to stay unchanged, since there were cases when fast warships were used to land troops (Norway comes to mind) in leiu of the transports on D-Day that we usually think of.

[ChrisND]

P.S. In the next patch the damage against transports has been raised.

[arado234]

Also battleships would never attempt to attck a uboat,neither would a crusier.Ive never read in any of my books where ships other than destroyers frigats or corvettes attacking uboats.I know adding the above units would probably get to crazy but maybe limit it to just crusiers.

[arado234]

P.s i agree with normal dude on both and vector

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

@ Arado: A Battleship unit in SC isn`t simply one big ship, there is a group of support vessels included as well... this is why BB`s can attack U-Boats in this game. Apart from that your argumentation is right... BB`s don`t attack U-Boats in real warfare.

[Retributar]

Yeeeeaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!....so wake up!, and smell the coffee!. Get a Triple-Espresso!.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Baron:

Air and Naval forces should never, never, never be able to destroy the last factor of any ground unit. We've all been over this before. Is the game realistic? Is it historical? Point is the name of the game is STRATEGIC COMMAND. On the strategic level in the 1940's it was impossible to devestate a unit the size of a corps or army to the point of its destruction using air or naval forces.

Are you talking using nothing but air and sea to destroy a unit? Or using it to pick off a unit at the very end after it has been reduced?

I have no problem with the latter, you could have just reorder the attacks, air first, then ground. A philosophical chicken/egg question.

As for the former, very expensive to do, eliminating a unit with nothing but, and the ground unit would have to be on the coast. I don't see it as a major problem. Or even a minor one at this scale.

[arado234]

Thanks for clarifying hyazinth

[Guest Mike]

IMO air attack should do nothing except reduce the experience/morale/cohesion of a ground unit.

[Baron]

Liam,

I want the change (in air and naval bombardment) so that the attacker has to change the order of his attack. While the ability of air and ground forces destroying a ground unit is not a game breaker in and of itself it does open up otherwise limited fronts.

Italy,N.Africa,Brest are all prime examples.By changing the rules to not allow a naval or air factor to destroy the last ground factor you force the attacker to use his ground units to do this. What this acomplishes is a limiting or narrowing of the front. With the attacker having to use his ground units to blow holes in the front you limit his explotation and make defense much more effective on narrow fronts. No longer will a combination of naval/air squadrons be able to blast a hole for ground units to exploit. I'm sick and tired of a lone cruiser sailing up and blasting away the last 2 or 3 factors of unit. (50 mile squares, max effective range of a 16" ship gun (carried by the Nelsons) 20 miles. It just wouldn't and further more didn't happen. Using the rules as they currently exist it would be impossible to replicate the Italian front.

Game:

Just blast away with your planes, then your ships polish off the enemy, then your ground unit advances into the hole at no penalty to movement or combat.

What should happen:

Blast away with your planes, your ships, then your ground unit eliminates the enemy and suffers the loss of movement that would have been required to destroy the remanants of a 30K unit and exploit the breakthrough.

I hope you all understand what I'm trying to say. I'm just having a hard time articulating it

[Lars]

Nah, I got ya.

But hey, you still have to stick a ground unit in there either way to take control. I see it as more a minor quibble.