Idea: Multiple Ships in Port & Repairs in Neutral Ports

[Edwin P.]

Ideas (for updates after the game is released):

First, The option to dock three fleets in a single port tile of strength 10 and only 1 in a port of 5 or less (so I can simulate Pearl Harbor)

Of course, there are pros and cons to this.

CON - Only one fleet can defend but all will take damage from any attack.

PRO - All fleets can be repaired at once.

Then there is the question about how to handle this in game terms.

You move a ship into port and it goes to the top of the stack. You click on each fleet to make the next fleet in the stack visible/active.

Second, I would like to see the UK have to option to dock and repair its ships in the ports of a Neutral USA once US war readiness is above 50%.If the Axis attack a UK ship in a Neutral US port then the USA enters the war. I would also like to see Allied Ships able to transit the Bosphorous straits if Turkey is leaning towards the allies and Axis ships able to transit the straits if Turkey is leaning towards the Axis.

Third, another plug for a Naval HQ unit - ie an HQ unit that only benefits Naval units. This would reflect an increased amount of resources devoted to naval warfare, intelligence and training of naval officers. One Naval HQ unit can benefit X naval units anywhere on the map.

[ December 21, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Hmmm... going have tp give some more thought about your first two suggestions.

As far as a Naval HQ, I think you are lumping too many bonuses into what you are trying to represent. If Naval HQ's are the equivalent of Ground HQ's, in game terms you are trying to represent a combination of the land based Naval infrastructure as well as the Fleet commanders who are at sea. I'd suggest the following...

Land based Naval HQ would simply increase the readiness range of the port it is on.

For each land based Naval HQ, you would be able to designate one (1) Naval unit (ie Fleet Command). This unit would receive the combat bonuses from the Naval HQ.

[Edwin P.]

I like you refinements, in fact, increasing the readiness range of the port would also affect the effective range of transport units, I believe(?). Your idea of designating only one 1 naval unit as Fleet Command is good , I like it.

Basically, with the Naval HQ I was trying to reflect the emphasis and resources that a nation placed on Naval Warfare. With the UK being at the top of the list and the Russians/Italians at the bottom. For a similar type of ship the UK ship will be staffed by a better trained crew that is supported by a better infrastructure ashore.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Edwin P:

Basically, with the Naval HQ I was trying to reflect the emphasis and resources that a nation placed on Naval Warfare.

More good ideas, especially this one concerning Naval HQ's. :cool:

I agree that it would be ideal to have some significant way to reflect UK's long and hard learned "naval superiority," in terms of doctrines and experienced, well-trained leaders and crews, and the like.

I have been in favor of this since way back when and HAVE campaigned for inclusion of ALL KINDS of added features having to do with "the naval game."

Remains to be seen which, if any Hubert prefers.

As you, I am definitely in favor of this particular one, we'll see, but so far as I now know it probably won't happen the first go-round.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Edwin P.]

Another concept, to consider is a National Doctrine aside from Tech Levels. Each nation starts with one doctrine that affects its units. This doctrine reflects the different emphasis that each nation placed on the training and organization of its units. You can change or adopt a doctrine for a cost of 1000mpp.

Historically, the UK favored Naval Warfare, the Germans emphasized Armor, the Russians Mass Production and the US Air.

Example:

UK - Naval Doctrine - 5% Readiness Bonus to Naval Units

USSR - Production Doctrine - 5% Reduction to costs of Production

GE - Armor Doctrine - 5% Readiness Bonus to Armor

Italy - None

USA - Air Doctrine - 5% Readiness Bonus to Air Fleets

FR - Fortifications - +1 AD Bonus to Units in Fortifications and Fortresses

Another issue is Governemts, as Shaka says now its a game of Reds vs Blues. Why not add features that highlights what differentiates Staln's USSR from the other nations.

Example: Only Russia and Germany can give their Units the No Retreat Command.

Example: Russia can can replace a HQ unit X (5?) turns after purchase with a randomly selected HQ unit at no cost. (As Russian Generals where shot for non-performance). The old HQ unit is considered KIA. Of course the new HQ appears in Moscow and it will take a turn or two for it to reach the front lines. Thus reflecting the distruption caused by shooting commanding officers in the midst of a war.

[ December 22, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

Well, as far as stacking goes, you recode for that, you might as well recode it for the ground units as well.

Repairs in Neutrals really doesn't make much sense. Not only do you have to have the proper dockyard facilities to handle warships, you have to have the right spares as well. For instance, I don't think the US had a lot of Brit gear laying around. Sure you could/might fix up a ship enough to put it back to sea, but without the right gear and stores, you're going to have to send it home to make a proper job of it anyway.

And this is all assuming a Neutral would be willing to risk it's neutrality, not to mention having to put it's own shipbuilding program on hold.

Naval HQ's are better represented by a tech anyway. Just consider Adv Subs or Gunlaying an abstraction of it. Maybe Hubert (or the editor) could tweaking their effects to give you some of what you want.

[Shaka of Carthage]

As far as the "emphasis and resources placed on Naval Warfare" and "National Doctrine", you can obtain that currently by simply tweaking the experience bars among the different nations.

[Desert Dave]

On the one hand:

Land based Naval HQ would simply increase the readiness range of the port it is on.

For each land based Naval HQ, you would be able to designate one (1) Naval unit (ie Fleet Command). This unit would receive the combat bonuses from the Naval HQ.

But then - on the other:

As far as the "emphasis and resources placed on Naval Warfare" and "National Doctrine", you can obtain that currently by simply tweaking the experience bars among the different nations.

Shaka, I do believe you are being... ambivalent.

Or perhaps, helping us all out by pointing out several sides of the issue, and providing a good potential remedy, satisfying the most... thanks.

Dialectic. Synthesis.

A thing accepted as BEST POSSIBLE solution

Given the particular circumstances.

And usual demand for immediate attention.

And that ever-diminishing budget.

And available resources, etc, etc, on and on.

Works great! Here, there, IRL, with almost everybody!

Would indeed be - to me and many others I'd bet - interesting and exciting to have another... NON INTRUSIVE feature (... such as Naval HQ would be, IMHO :cool: ) which would create even more choices, and more FUN, and best of all... add just a few minutes to over-all, full-campaign game time.

And that is most certainly one thing that Hubert ALWAYS keeps... foremost in mind.

"Fun, but faithful and basic, without unecessary bother and clutter."

IF I've heard him say it once, I've heard him say it ~20 or 30 times.

But, IF we don't get it - the Naval "this or that," or the perfect "sturm & drang," hey, it's OK... it has to be.

We CAN indeed "edit" enough of the various factors to pretty well... "approximate" each Country's different strengths and weaknesses, whether it be - now, for this Naval game,

Or, also,

The Martial skills for every combat unit, Diplomatic power, Research capability,

Economic potential, and... "manpower"

(IE, very closely approximated , with

those added "force pool" limits)

And more.

I've looked, for over 40 years and I've looked all over the gaming place and at last realized... VERY hard - no, about impossible, to find another game that allows such tremendous "editorial license"... I wonder? Once SC2-Blitzkrieg! is released, will we... EVER will see the likes of it, again?

Likely not, but at least - an innocent CHALLENGE has been casually proposed.

You other game-makers?

New to it, or

By a crowd, greatly acclaimed?

CAN you... do it? LOLOLOL!

And... IF not, why not? :confused:

After all, here is a one-man shop, and many

Of you have... Big Corporate backing

And vastly superior available resources.

And so,

That's about how I see it too. :cool:

[Bill101]

I think that repairing one fleet would be a major task for any port, and repairing several fleets is really asking too much so I'd recommend that things are kept as they were in SC.

As to a naval HQ, I'm not sure that it is really needed, but I do think that your idea of a higher readiness depending on the nation has something to it. Though maybe it can just be factored in already into allowing a country to start with either a higher tech than the other, or with more experience or entrenchment for their starting units. Ok, it's not quite the same thing, but the end result should be similar.

[SeaMonkey]

What I think we have all asked for here is the ability to emphasize a certain armed force action other than what the present HQs allow us. We have flogged this horse before, but its still a good idea. I'll propose that in the essence of SC tradition that we embark upon an abstract presentation of adding extra supplies, unit enhancements of equipment, communications, and intelligence, etc., etc. to operations chosen by the owning player. This abstraction of enhanced combat parameters should cost an additional amount of MPP allocation and should not be immediately available, ie. the turn of MPP investment. This feature could be useful in simulating a surprise attack condition. I like to call it "Asset Attachments", the emphasis on a certain theater for offensive combat operations. The amount of "Attachments" available to the chosen units should be determined by the willingness of MPP expenditure and "National Characteristics", or maybe IT tech level or Oil + Mining resource possessions or something that provides for a maximum definition of the number of "Assets" allowed at any time. But again, I'm thinking that this is a redundant request, since we have HQs and the ability to deploy, operationally our unit OOB and the mechanism to build units with combat enhancements with tech levels. Yeah, maybe we just need one naval and one airforce HQ depending on the attainment of certain conditions.

[Augustus]

With all respect, not sure if I like the idea. I find that having to take turns to re-equip fleets adds to the excitement and realism of (simulated) battle. Nothing like chasing a wounded adversary in open sea. Anyways, I like it as is.

Cheers

[gdpsnake]

I don't know about naval HQ's but I would suggest the Allies be allowed to purchase a "Mulberry" like HQ that can be used as a temporary port for amphibious assault until a supply link is made with an existing port. As it stands in SC1, it's too easy to prevent/cripple a Historic D-Day.

Perhaps each country could have access to some "amphibious HQ's" of various quality to perform Amphip ops on 'beaches' especially if the map is bigger.

[Edwin P.]

In Sc2 you will have amphibious units that can land at any hex in the SAME TURN that they move adjacent to it. No longer will you opponent want to delay moving units to a front until he sights your transports lined up along the shore. Now the Germans have a reason to garrison France and the Low countries.