Question on Engineers: could they build Railroads?

[PowerGmbH]

Well a Maybe Easy to Implement Issue would be to have the Engineers create something like a "Support-field" means the Engineer creates an "Airfield" or simply spoken a Filed which has a Stand-Alone-Support of 5,

Same for Harbours where this Engineers (able to move on Sea fields) creates a "port" or simply spoken a Sea-Field with Stand-Alone-Support of 5.

For the Railroad the issue is more difficult...

[SeaMonkey]

Great idea David, but for it to have 50% efficiency/5 supply level it should be connected to a communication/logistics network, like our rails function currently.

Even roads should have a lesser %/supply when connected, then the movement of an HQ to the "Support-field" would serve as a commitment to supplemental assets(potential of 8 supply) for offensive or defensive operations in the area.

Now that shouldn't be too tough to include and the AI could easily...well ok..maybe not easily, but hopefully, use the feature somewhat competently.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Nice idea, but are there any examples of that actually being done? </font>

5th Mountain division on Crete?

14th Airfroce (andits predecessors) in china?

[JonS]

5th Mtn Div is a corps?

[SeaMonkey]

Hey SO don't forget the massive air convoy the Luftwaffe maintained throughout the Stalingrad battle.

Talk about an effort and in bad weather also.

I'm sure that scenario would equate to at least a corps' lifting.

[JonS]

Oh dear god The Stalingrad lift was an abysmal failure, I thought that was common knowledge?

Why not just suggest moving and suppling a corps via submarines? I mean, the Italians used that means to keep the Bardia/Halfaya garrison 'supplied' from Dec 41 through Jan 42 ...

[SeaMonkey]

Failure or not there were a lot of supplies flown in and wounded brought out, not to mention extending the campaign longer than normally possible.

Good referal to the sub supply model, Japs did that a lot in the Pacific.

[JonS]

For corps sized force elements?

Oh, don't forget the Nazi antarctic base - NeuSchwabanland. Better get a suggestion in for that too.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by JonS:

5th Mtn Div is a corps?

It's 1/2 a corps, so fits within the bracket IMO.

how come you didn't question the airlift to support the chinese and the 14th AF?

the size and success of an airlift is determined by known factors - the number and capacity of the transports, the range, the weather, the facilities at each end of the lift, and the opposition.

there's nothing intrinsically improbable about lifting an entire corps in WW2 - IIRC Germany lifted 20,000 spanish troops from morocco at the start of the Spanish Civil War, 15,000 troops weer airlifted to Tunis in 1942 in only a few days

[JonS]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

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

5th Mtn Div is a corps?

It's 1/2 a corps, so fits within the bracket IMO.</font>

[SeaMonkey]

OK a corps by airlift, that is what you said ...right?

Including airborne operations, D-Day and Market Garden,...oh but you meant landing and debarking from airfields right? Does this mean the assets are available, but it just wasn't done that way?

So, it is impossible to supply a corps through airlift WW2 operations, any contingent, within the timeframe of an SC turn?

Well I guess you have a greater in depth grasp of the potential of WW2 airlift operations than what I assumed was possible in my exposure to history.

Guess I missed it....damn human fallible qualities!

Then abstractly thinking, I guess in the context of SC, we couldn't even begin to acknowledge the possible beginning of an airlift that may extend for two plus turns in WW2 that would accomplish the feat?

If so, how do you represent the beginning in SC terms, a corps at 1/2 strength, 1/3, 1/4, another unit type(SF) or we just conclude..."it can't be done"?

[Liam]

not many corpsized units would be airlifted, but that's besides the point, size isn't the essence. Though a very powerful well trained Brigade may fight more like a Corps... The 82nd Airborne Brigade could've probably taken a lot of objectives due to it's very very high training and high capability to fight... And it was not the airborne aspect that made it so powerful, it's what followed and what it was capable of doing. I'll bet that German Paratroopers and American Paratroopers were equivelant roughly to 2 or 3 Regular Men in training, etc... Also should I mention that a Airborne unit is specialized and it doesn't have to worry about certian types of anti-personal measures that might otherwise kill a unit triple it's size like barbed wire-mines-bunkers, etc... There are lots of variables to consider

The Airlifts at Stalingrad were extremely difficult, there were very few airfields available to the Axis in Stalingrad Pocket. It was Winter. Probably as many supplies ending up in Allied hands as Axis. A big failure by Goering again

[JonS]

Originally posted by Liam:

... Though a very powerful well trained Brigade may fight more like a Corps ...

What!?

The 82nd Airborne Brigade could've probably taken a lot of objectives due to it's very very high training and high capability to fight ...

:confused: Who!?

Also, what is the minimum sized unit in SC again?

I'll bet that German Paratroopers and American Paratroopers were equivelant roughly to 2 or 3 Regular Men in training, etc

Oh really. You bet that, do you. Do tell, which issue of Commando you got that factoid out of?

Also should I mention that a Airborne unit is specialized and it doesn't have to worry about certian types of anti-personal measures that might otherwise kill a unit triple it's size like barbed wire-mines-bunkers, etc...

Oh. Really? They don't have to worry about bunker and barbed wire? What, did they float over them like angels, or burrow under them like moles, or sumfink? What about minefields, artillery, machineguns, and tanks - do paras have to worry about those?

There are lots of variables to consider

Yes, there are a lot of variables to consider. I think the key variable to consider in this context is that you don't have a freaking clue what you're talking about.

Sorry you wasted my time.

Take care

Jon

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

I need to admit that after a few games of WaW I would love Engineers building RRs.. esp. fighting in North Africa and the Middle East is a pain sometimes.

[PowerGmbH]

SeaMonkey & Liam:

well to the suggestions and examples of Airlifts, there could be a more easy and also realisitc approach in SC2WAW:

Imagine a "Support-HQ" (cost i.e. 75 or 100MPP) that can be Airborne (distance same as Paratroops) and Has a strength Level as well as Supply Level of 6 on landing. And now each turn the "Support HQ" is reduced by 1 Point in Strength as well as Support. After 5 Turns it simply disappears from the map.

This could be an approach to Some "airlift" supply problems.

i.e. this Supply-HQ can land in Africa (representing Air-Supply over Meditearanean) and help the "lost-Armys" there, or land in Russia in an "cut off zone" or make possible some Airborne-landings in Asia or Pacific Islands, without the immediate problem of supply for the Paratroops. Could bring some challenging issues and interisting Air-Raids

On the other Hand, most "cut-off" units anyway are lost, and if cut off, then they are maybe allready surrounded by ennemy, so a landing is not the solution. In this Case the "support-HQ" unit could be something like that:

A Support-HQ that can "fill-up" support of ONE single Unit within it's Operating Range (like the manual-function of HQ attachment).

i.e. this Unit (Looking like a Transport-Plane)can be clicked on and then the Engine asks "which Unit in range shall be supplied?" and you click a Corps/tank/Army or sth. and the Clicked Army gets i.e. +5aditional Supply (for the next turn).

In order not to abuse this system only the Mayor Nations shall get this Unit (i.e. URSS/UK/JAP/IT: each one and USA/GER 2 Units)

What about this idea?

(but still no solution for the Railways....:-(( )

[Liam]

Jon:

You might be right at times an airborne unit will face an obstacle but the point of an Airborne unit is that is Flies over it. I.E. why did our boys fly over the Atlantic Wall? Technically speaking most fixed fortifications are not the biggest stress to the airborne unit it's the other factors they deal with, as in SC and in real life, fortifications are generally not able to cover every angle.. That adds to their power in the field.

in SC some of their purposes are Island Obstacles, rear area Special Targets, areas where land units movement is hindered and to bypass Forts

Also:

I know men of the 82nd Airborne and 101st Brigades and I know thousands of them. They are usually the toughest men. Like Marines-Commandos-etc... they are on that level and in SC they are also.. Why a whole corps is dedicated to their existence... Believe me 5,000 82nd Airborne men are equivelant to 20,000 regular Army... Lots of Rangers and lots of Special OPs in there. I know them personally and if you'd like a link I can give it to you to some of capable Killers in that unit over the past 50 years.. Like the SS StormTroopers, Russian Guard Units??, SAS etc... They pride themselves on their training, and they are not average..

Despite the poor performance of Paras in WW2 doesn't mean they couldn't have been employed properly, it is not the men's fault in Crete, Market Garden, D-Day that they were used so fruitlessly and most died. Had a Sea Lion been undergone you can imagine a vast majority of the troops opening up Airfields and Ports would've been Airborne and it would've been due to their special nature...

So I do think it should be included and it has been since SC2's release

and I'm not an idiot any my specifications are 110% precise and from real life, I worked for the 82nd Airborne and lived in it's home

[Liam]

Power:

Your ideas have much merit. Simulating a Rear Area of supply is very advanced and would do away with a lot of the fear we have now of that tightening grip on the front of losing every unit due to lack of supply. It would be very very hard to incorporate and for some Nations with weak airpower would be maybe even easy to exploit. Though I find it far more intrigueing than Engineers and the construction of RR.. Airdrops did not successfully save many men in WW2 but they did attempt to.....it means that the intention was there, and the idea could be examined... one might even imagine a Deep Penetrating commando unit, supplied by air to keep the Motors going till it captures it's objective. It might make the supply nightmares on the map more workable

[Sombra]

The opion to build railroads could be nice to prepare in advance "escape routes" for the battles in Rusia. Unfortunately As I know human players they would build an extensive railroad net all over france as well and destroying the point of "critical railroad centers" as PAris etc.

[PowerGmbH]

To SOmbra:

Yes that is also my Fear: An experienced player would build around the RR-Centers, so that a Bombing Strategy would be avoided by surrounding the cities (Ceating RR-HighWays from Berlin to Everywhere...) . not so nice.

Easiest maybe would be to do a Script solution:

By acting in a certain way the player enables a Skript that realizes a couple o Strategic RR-Connections that where important for the war, i.e. the Burma-RR or some other smaller RR-Projects. That has also theadvantage of beeing more close tho historic context.

[Lars]

The easy answer is to give railroads and airfields strength points so you could bomb the snot out of them and destroy them.

btw, think Jons is spot on about airlifting units at this scale. It just wasn't possible at the time.

[Guest Mike]

Of course it was possible - the wallies had enough air transport to shift corps sized units in a matter of a few days between friendly airfields had they wanted to or needed to - it was a matter of resource priority, objectives, etc as to whether it was done.

historically there was no need, so it wasn't done.

sometiems things that historically did need to be done didnt' get done either.

Teh game is supposed to be about alternate history - if you want to limit it to only the things that were actualy done......well.... we've been down that path before....

[JonS]

Let's have a look at a hypothetical then, hey? Let's be generous - we'll set the hypothetical in mid 1945 (max capability) and in NWE (best access to resources).

Lets assume a standard UK corps (and, to be extra special unrealistically generous, they can use or borrow all Western-Allied air tpt resources available in theatre), so that's:

2 infantry divisions

- 3 inf bdes each

- - 3 inf bns each

- - bde HQ

- 3 fd arty regts each

- - total of 72 x 25pr, plus about 300 vehs in each div

- 1 MG bn each

- 1 engr bn each

- 1 A-Tk regt each

- 1 LAA regt each

- 1 recce regt each

- other stuff (med, log, etc)

- Divisional HQ

1 armoured division

- 1 inf bde

- - 3 inf bns

- - bde HQ

- 1 armd bde

- - 3 armd regts

- - bde HQ

- 2 fd arty regts

- 1 engr bn

- 1 armd recce regt

- 1 armd car regt

- 1 A-Tk regt

- 1 LAA regt

- other stuff (med, log, etc)

- Divisional HQ

1 corps armoured brigade

- 3 armd regts

- bde HQ

5 corps medium regiments

- total of 80 x 5.5-in gun-hows and about 400 vehicles

1 corps heavy regiment

- 8 x 7.2-in and 8 x 155mm hows, plus about 100 vehicles

1 corps armoured car regt

1 corps A-Tk regt

3 corps engr bns

corps AA regts

corps RASC elems

corps RAMC elems

corps RSigs elems

other corps stuff

Corps HQ

Please show how all that can be moved by air in NWE in 1945. Then we can start looking at poorer airforces and poorer theatres.

alternate history =/= fantasy history

[ December 11, 2007, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[SeaMonkey]

OK...so you're the decider on the size of the mission taskforce based on generic TO&E for a UK Corps?

I thought our SC units were a little more abstract than that, not to mention how real life combat teams are put together. :eek:

So we have strict definitions in an abstract game? :confused:

Hmmm.....I smell sea creatures rotting.

[JonS]

It's not a 'mission task force'. It's a corps. A task force is a bn(+) sized ad-hoc unit. It isn't a 'real life combat team' either. It's a corps. A combat team is a coy-to-bn sized force. Bn(+) and bn(-) are a little below the scale for SC, no? 'Mission task forces' and 'combat teams' are made up of various groupings of the units already in the abstract corps. They are below the level of abstraction, d'you see?

What's listed in my previous post is not a 'strict definition', it's an utterly bog standard, generic UK corps. Look it up. Anywhere. All five or six of them were the same. I'm not 'deciding' anything - if the chits in SC are corps, then that is what the UK chits represent*. A US corps would be pretty similar, with little variation between June 1944 and May 1945. If you are going to abstract a corps, then that is what an abstract corps contains abstractly, the vast majority of the time. The abstract corps represents the all the normal elements of the corps in a single chit - what else could it represent?

If you want to airlift your abstract corps, thatyou have to show how all that can be moved. The abstraction comes in game - after you've shown it could be done - by allowing you to pick up your corps from one city, and drop it down in another without worrying about whether you've got enough aircrew, planes, gas, airfields, aircraft, flight timetables, etc. You don't worry about that because it's abstracted, but the abstraction is only valid if you can show that if you did worry about all that other stuff, you'd still be able to move them. You can't just wave your hand and pretend the difficulties don't exist.

Moving the men is the easy and trivial bit. But you can't just take the easy bit and pretend the hard bit goes away. The hard bit is moving all the kit.

Show me how that can be done. Please. Someone. Anyone. Is a little bit of proof behind the abstraction really too much to ask?

Jon

* There are exceptions, of course there are. For GOODWOOD three armoured divs were put into a single corps. TOTALISE was another exception, with II Cdn Corps having 3 infantry divs, 2 armoured divs, a couple of armd bdes, plus other bits and bobs in proportion. The GOODWOOD grouping lasted about a week, that for TOTALISE all of a couple of days. Out of a campaign lasting 11 calendar months, or about 55 corps-months.

[ December 11, 2007, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[SeaMonkey]

JonS..JonS...JonS...just can't get there can you. Ok, not my problem, I guess my vision is a little wider than yours....and that's OK.

Try to think of a Corps or an Army as just an organized bunch of combat units, and hey..I'm not limiting this discussion to just those SC units, you can include the special forces also or others.

You know in WW2 there were Armies and Corps command structures that sometimes didn't have any combat abilities, no assigned combat troops. Your defining the SC corps by some historical facts(TO&E) for UK corps as an example, but these are SC corps, not UK corps. We're the armed force organizers in SC, not some General Staff from some country of a bygone era, we just operate loosely under that era's guidelines.

So we're somewhere between nothing and your generic UK corps in concept of command. Of course the time element of an SC turn or the operational scale, remember there is a lower scale capability in SC scenarios, precludes any possibility of an airlift from a friendly set of airfields in one location to another? There's that "smell" again.

There were just not enough DC3s to supply West Berlin during the blockade...ok so what if it was 1948? Think in terms of tonnage movement capability over a week..a month. Maybe it just wasn't expedient in terms of necessity for WW2 operations, doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

SC is about "what if". It's not for you or I to decide, unless we're the players, they decide. Its up to the game mechanics to make it feasible, as it was done IRL, but perhaps not to your imagined scale...but to mine or theirs.