Some things I would like in the default scenarios

[ev]

There is a long list of thins I want. But Hubert & Co. are giving the last touches to the game engine and game editor... and, I guess it is time to start focusing on the default scenarios.

So here is some food for thought:

1. Tank Groups should be both stronger and more expensive. They should represent a Tank Army of some 8 divisions.

2. Infantry should be much better at defense, not so good at offense. It should be suicidal to assault an infantry possition with another infantry unit of the same size unless you manage to degrade the defender first (by cutting supply, etc.)

3. Rocket Launchers, if used at all, should be good only for strategic bombing, i.e. have a very strong strategic bombing capability but minimal tactical attack strength.

4. Consider allowance of Heavy Rail Artillery. The Germans used super heavy rail artillery to breach the Sevastopol fortifications. If we are going to allow engineers go construct fortifications (which I like), we should allow for the development of super heavy rail artillery to shell those forts. Heavy Rail Artillery should only be effective against static defenses (fortifications and perhapps reducing entrenchment level). Heavy Rail Artillery should not be effective against un-entrenched units.

5. Give us Air Superiority Fleets. Having only fighters (no tactical dive bombers), these units could be somewhat cheaper than regular fleets, and could be used solely for escorting bomber and defending your air space.

6. I do not see why Infantry Corps should move any faster than Infantry Army. We need the Corps to fill the gaps in the long lines of the Russian Front. But a corps is nothing but a mini army...

7. Allow for Garrison Units with minimal movement and attack capability, whose only purpose is to hold cities, ports, and fortifications. One way to do this is to grant fotifications a standing defense strength even when they are not occupied by a friendly unit. So when you fortify Amsterdam, you are also placing a garrison in that city.

8. This one will be more controversial, but, here it goes: consider Tank Destroyer Armies. Guderian flatly oppossed this idea, but other German commanders argued for the formation of large scale "PanzerJagger" units. These tank destroyer armies would be cheaper than tanks. And, they would have minimal tank attack capability. But, their other attributes (soft attack, soft defense, and tank defense) would be just a notch below Tank Armies.

No one ever made Tank Destroyer Armies, but it was within the realm of possibilities, and, definitely an idea worth trying in a game of this scale. Just to find out what could have happened.

[Night]

I agree with everything but am a little iffy on 4 and 8. However I think 1 is a must and thought it was a draw-back of SC1 that tank groups were so weak, when I field tank groups I want them to be able to breech enemy corps and push hard and fast with little worry about anything else but enemy tanks, aircraft, and being cut off. In SC1 tank groups were nearly useless vs higher anti-tank weapons infantry units. This is esp. ridicilous in Russia were the Russin's NEVER have to buy any tank units and can rely on corps/armies to destroy german tank groups. I started asking myself what the point of tank groups were after a while since corps can move just as far and are much cheaper.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Night:

However I think 1 is a must and thought it was a draw-back of SC1 that tank groups were so weak...

Weaklings? With Egyptian sands kicked in their sun-peeling and awful forlorn face?

Won't be the case in SC2, I can assure you of that much.

Hubert has emphasized that he does want the tank to become as relevant, and as decisive, and as mobile, and as potent as it was in the actual World War 2, ETO.

Hence, the name of the game: SC2-Blitzkrieg!

Insofar as actual research paramaters, and "combat target data"... which will insure that the tank WILL indeed perform up to Hurryin' Heinz Guderian's fondest expectations, well, that will be realized in time, and by way of thorough beta-testing.

If it is not... QUITE, to your liking, then, but of course, you might make small modifications in your own "dream campaign."

The Corps can move too far and too fast?

Adjust the APs down a click.

The tank needs slightly better sloping armor and track-skirts, so to deflect those furious! hornet A/T shells that the Red Berserkers unleash?

Go to your hammered anvil (... your editor) and adjust the tank's soft-attack defense... UP a click.

There is simply TOO MUCH A/T capability, in your humble opinion?

FREEZE the potential research for whichever Country you wish.

Russia? Too many and too furious those hornets? No problem... now a Max 3 on the A/T research board.

[ev]

Originally posted by Night:

...1 is a must and thought it was a draw-back of SC1 that tank groups were so weak, when I field tank groups I want them to be able to breech enemy corps and push hard and fast with little worry about anything else but enemy tanks, aircraft, and being cut off. In SC1 tank groups were nearly useless vs higher anti-tank weapons infantry units. This is esp. ridicilous in Russia were the Russin's NEVER have to buy any tank units and can rely on corps/armies to destroy german tank groups. I started asking myself what the point of tank groups were after a while since corps can move just as far and are much cheaper.

Exactly my point. In SC1, I used tank much like a mobile infantry army. I used them, specially since I could not motorize my infantry armies. But there was nothing special about them. My tank groups were not the "mailed fist" that spearheaded my attacks.

When Germany started the war it only had a half dozen Panzer Divisions. I am afraid, Hubert & Co. felt they could not give two Panzer Armies to Germany at the start of the game to keep the historical flavor. So they opted to make Panzer Groups more like Panzer Corps than Panzer Armies.

I appreciate this historical concern. There are however other options. First, Germany could start with two understrength Panzer Armies. Alternatively, Germany could start with only one Panzer Army. The invasion of Poland would proceed along different lines... but, I think that would be interesting too. I have the feeling any modern player faced with an operational game of Poland 1939 would concentrate his armor in one decisive point.

I also hear your concern regarding items #4 and #8. They deviate further from the traditional line of thought. But they were historical options available to the leaders of the time. They chose not to pursue them. They also chose not to research jet engines earlier, and, to postpone development of heavier tanks. We all embrace including those other options (jet engines and heavy tanks) in the game because of our post WWII experience. Other options seem odd, but they were actually much more readily available at the time than the ones we now take for granted sixty years past.

Let me elaborate further on each of #4 and #8.

#4 Supper Heavy Rail Guns. The technology existed at the time to make supper heavy guns. In fact battleships carried much heavier guns than any land combat unit. The problem with supper heavy guns, was first and foremost transportion. The other problem was that set up was so slow that it was only worth using them against static possitions.

After the fall of the Maginot Line there were no large fortifications left in Europe, except for Sevastopol, and lose strongholds in the Atlantic Wall. The Atlantic Wall strongholds were all within reach of the Allied Battleship Guns and there was no way the allies could bring to shore anything bigger. But in Sevastopol, the Germans used with moderate success some pretty impressive supper guns - much bigger than anything a battleship could carry, they could blast a whole bunker off the ground.

#8 Tank Destroyer Armies sounds weird. I know. But consider the predicament of the German High Command. Heavy Tanks are very expensive. You have some very succesfull medium tank chassis (Panzer III and Panzer IV). They cannot handle turrets with the heavier guns, but, you can refit them as tank destroyers with 75mm fixed on top of them. So you keep only a couple of real tank units and you support the flanks of those top notch units with PanzerJaggers. You realize the limitations on the PanzerJaggers. But you also realize the vastness of Russia, the huge scale of the Barbarossa campagin, and the fact that most of the Russian army will be low grade infantry corps. A mobile PanzerJagger would be able to punch through low grade infantry corps, and hold its ground against counter attacks by Russian tanks. You have the technology, you have the need, this could be a solution, you do it or you pass, your choice.

[Panzeh]

Having tank destroyer armies is just ridiculous, they never even made full divisions, much less corps or armies.

[ev]

Originally posted by Panzeh:

Having tank destroyer armies is just ridiculous, they never even made full divisions, much less corps or armies.

Is it really? As of 1944 many Panzer Divisions had lost most of their tanks and they they considered themself lucky if they had any Panzer Jaggers (tank destroyers). As a matter of fact, half way through the war some "Light Panzer Divisions" only had tank destroyers, regardless of what was suppossed to be their configuration on paper.

Remember, in WWii they did not have Bradleys with guided ATGMs on top. Short of a tank, the only mobile anti tank plataform was a tank destroyer. But there was an even bigger problem, any gun below 50mm was not strong enough to damage a T-34. But any larger gun could be spotted from far away and blasted by supporting artillery. Yes, the 88mm was great, but it was alway kept far in the rear not because it belonged to the Luftwaffe, but because it would be blasted away by artillery if brought closer to the front. See "Standing Fast: German Defensive Doctrine on the Russian Front Duting WWII" by Major Timothy A. Wray.

The problem described above left many German officers to conclude that the only good anti tank weapon was the tank itself (or its lesser sibbling, the PanzerJagger). Only a Tank or Tank Destroyer could come close enough to the frontline to hold off a tank attack. And, tanks were simply too expensive.

There are several reasons for which tank destroyers were a lot cheaper than the tank:

First, the mobile turret was in and of itself expesive.

Second, the mobile turret meant you needed a very large chasis to carry a big gun. A Panzer III chasis (cheap) could not carry a big gun in a rotating turret. But that cheap chasis could carry a big gun if static.

Third, eliminating the turret allowed the vehicle to be lower, harder to detect and hit, so you did not need to make armor so heavy.

Fourth, these smaller vehicles burned less gas.

Finally, remember I am not talking of making an army of solely tank destroyers. Tank Group in SC1 represents a mixture of weapons that includes tanks. Likewise a Tank Destroyer would represent a mixture of motorized infantry, artillery, combat engineers, recon, and ...tank destroyers.

[Night]

I didn't argue that they were historicaly inacurate or unfeasable but I just think that it is starting to strech things at this point, esp. in the case of Tank Destroyer groups since if we fix the problems with Tank Groups we can just use those as well as higher A/T tech to combat enemy tank groups.

The only real need I could see for Tank Destroyer groups is early in Barbarosa if your the Russin's and need to blunt the spear of the German Armor

groups before they drive to far or cause to many losses. But then you will find yourself in a fix when the tide turns and you have all or nearly all Tank Destroyer armies, which basicly should not be made effective vs infantry or attacking other tank destroyers, and won't be able to launch your own Armored counter offensive like it was in real life.

The 2nd need would be for the Germans post-stalingrad or pre normandy to hold off the historical masses and masses of allied tanks, both T-34 and Sherman. For this cause, since Germany would be on the defensive for an indefinate period of time, it could be very useful, but only if the Allies have large numbers of tank groups and not so many infantry units which would of course beat up on Tank destroyer groups and leave holes in any defensive line.

Rail Artiliry while historicaly used in WWII and effectivly I will admit in many cases, is just to small scale for a game like this, how many could you possibly buy the whole game? 1 or 2? and only if you are Germany or even a strech Russia will you need them. You might as well just make a Artiliry unit since it is more Generic and has more uses. But as we all know Artiliry is part of Corps and Armies in SC.

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by ev:

3. Rocket Launchers, if used at all, should be good only for strategic bombing, i.e. have a very strong strategic bombing capability but minimal tactical attack strength.

4. Consider allowance of Heavy Rail Artillery. The Germans used super heavy rail artillery to breach the Sevastopol fortifications. If we are going to allow engineers go construct fortifications (which I like), we should allow for the development of super heavy rail artillery to shell those forts. Heavy Rail Artillery should only be effective against static defenses (fortifications and perhapps reducing entrenchment level). Heavy Rail Artillery should not be effective against un-entrenched units.

How about combine these two? Take the existing Rocket unit and remove its ability to reduce an enemy unit's strength. Instead, it only reduces entrenchment and readiness of any units attacked. And against cities/mines/oil, it reduces MPP value (whether a unit is sitting on it or not). It also can only move a couple of hexes (forcing Op-moves to move around by rail).

- Chris

[SeaMonkey]

Night...ev, give it up, there is a simple solution. Allow anti-tank tech to increase the TD(armor defense value) of both infantry and mech/mot./tank units, perhaps less for the leg infantry than for motorized units. If you decide not to research Heavy Tanks, there will still be a chance to increase your TD value, but not your TA value. This brings up a good point, what should the interaction of Heavy Tank tech and Anti-Tank tech be for the various unit types we will have in SC2? My thinking is the Heavy Tank tech should always be slightly more potent due to the first shot capability(quicker to engage multiple targets) of a moveable turret over a fixed gun unless the defending unit is entrenched.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I agree that Tank Groups have problems in SC. But I don't think the way to fix them in SC2, is by making a Tank "Army". The existing unit of four (4) divisions is almost ideal as a representation of an Armored Group. There are other ways to address the problems with the Tank Groups. one possible solution being in the post SeaMonkey submitted.

The existing combat model does present a problem in that the defender doesn't cause the attacker enough casualties. Especially when the attacker benefits from high experience levels. This was something that was brought up many months ago. Buts its a very subtle problem, as the "problem" doesn't exist outside of extreme conditions.

German Rocket Launchers, Strategic Bombers and in some respects, even U-boats, all have the same problem. These are strategical weapons that SC does a poor job of representing and even worse, compounds the problem by letting them be involved in the tactical combat.

Night is exactly correct about the Heavy Rail. Its too small on our scale.

I would support a "fighter" unit, if that meant the existing Air unit was split into two units ... a "fighter" unit and "tactical bomber" unit. If this is what it takes to "fix" the Air unit problem, so be it. But this is a major design change.

Smaller formations move further distances (hence faster), because they take less time to get the front and rear of the formation moving. Its a "slinky" effect. SC problem is that the Corps and Armies are motorized already, so reducing the AP's on them will fix it.

Garrison unit concept is intriguing, since it would represent the type of unit that in reality exists in Gibralter, Malta, etc. But I don't see how it would work, without some major changes to the existing combat factors.

Any talk of Tank Destroyers means we have to be very careful about what we mean, as a Tank Destroyer in the American army is not the same thing as a Tank Destroyer in the German army. However, I do believe that its not something we have to concern ourselves with, as the differences between a Tank and a Tank Destroyer is lost at our scale... being abstracted in the concept of a "armored fighting vehicle" and "heavy tank" tech research.

[ May 27, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[With Clusters]

Um, this is gonna be a bit off topic, but didn't the Swiss field a complete 'tank destroyer' force in the late Cold War? I remember watching a show (a long time ago, to be sure) about how the Swiss had gone entirely with a turretless 'tank' (if there is such a creature) as their primary armor weapon, which seemed suitable with their rugged terrain and purely defensive philosophy. I have no opinion regarding 'tank destroyer' units in SC2 (WWII is a completely different time frame from the 80s), I'm just wondering if anyone can corroborate my memory?

To get semi-back on topic, regarding the whole 'rail gun'/fortification thing - how about allowing engineer units to destroy fortifications as well as build them? You could immagine part of their offensive function would be to build big old guns and such to take down enemy strong points. The only problem I see is with the stacking restriction - how do you get them next to the enemy fortification w/o risking expensive damage in a counter attack, or block the way for regular combat units? Any thoughts on that?

[ev]

O.K. I knew #4 and #8 (Heavy Guns and Tank Destroyers) would be very controversial and they are not my main concern. I will comment on them later. My main concern regards the strength of Tank Groups.

Prior to Barbarosa, the largest tank formation were the German Panzer Corps. In Poland, France 1940, Africa, and Yugoslavia Panzer Divisions were put together in groups of three or four divisions to form Panzer Corps. Panzer Groups made of two or three Panzer Corps were first used in Russia.

So much for historical background. If the game was to have only Infantry Corps, then I would certainly go for having only Tank Corps. But in SC1 we were pitching Tank Corps against Infantry Armies. If we are going to have Infantry Corps and Infantry Armies we need a tank formation which corresponds to the larger of the two infantry formations. Else, as soon as the defender can make a line of Infantry Armies, we'll be stuck in a stalemate.

My ideal game would have a somewhat smaller scale (thirty miles per tile) and would only have corps (no infantry armies). I realize that is not an option. There are very good reasons for the 50 mile tile, and, this is Hubert's game, not mine. I also realize that the 50 mile scale calls for larger units. Fine, but let's have larger infantry and larger tanks, not just one without the other.

On the Heavy Gun issue, I like Wolfe's recommendation:

How about combine these two (Rockets and Heavy Gun)? Take the existing Rocket unit and remove its ability to reduce an enemy unit's strength. Instead, it only reduces entrenchment and readiness of any units attacked. And against cities/mines/oil, it reduces MPP value (whether a unit is sitting on it or not). It also can only move a couple of hexes (forcing Op-moves to move around by rail).

The yeast of my concerns regarding rockets and heavy guns goes as follows: On the one hand, neither rockets or supper heavy guns were effective against mobile units. At best they were only effective against static targets such as factories or bunkers. On the other hand, since SC2 will allow for the construction of fortifications we will need some weapon to balance the effect of fortifications in the game. Wolfe's recommendation addresses both of my concerns.

Tank Destroyers ...fine, I knew this would be very controversial. And the game has an editor for those willing to try out strange ideas like mine.

Fighter Only Units ... Shaka posted:

I would support a "fighter" unit, if that meant the existing Air unit was split into two units ... a "fighter" unit and "tactical bomber" unit. If this is what it takes to "fix" the Air unit problem, so be it.

Perfect. In terms of design, reduce the air attack capability of some air fleets to 0 or 1 so these fleets become your tactical bombers. Meanwhie reduce the tactical bombing strength of other fleets to 0 or 1 and these become your fighters. Finally, make each air unit a bit cheaper to produce. ...and, you are all set, except for the A.I.

Splitting tactical and fither require changes to the AI. The building blocks are probably there. Tactical Bombers would draw from the A.I. routines of both Strategic Bombers and existing mixed Air Fleets. Figthers would have to escort both Tactical and Strategic Bombers. Finally, fighters would have to know they should not attack land units. But the AI routines for escorting are also there. I hope Hubert has enough time to work this out.

[ev]

Originally posted by With Clusters:

Um, this is gonna be a bit off topic, but didn't the Swiss field a complete 'tank destroyer' force in the late Cold War? I remember watching a show (a long time ago, to be sure) about how the Swiss had gone entirely with a turretless 'tank' (if there is such a creature) as their primary armor weapon, which seemed suitable with their rugged terrain and purely defensive philosophy. I have no opinion regarding 'tank destroyer' units in SC2 (WWII is a completely different time frame from the 80s), I'm just wondering if anyone can corroborate my memory?

Thanks for the info on the Swiss Army. Apparently you posted your last entry while I was drafting my last, and did not notice 'till now.

On your second point,

To get semi-back on topic, regarding the whole 'rail gun'/fortification thing - how about allowing engineer units to destroy fortifications as well as build them? You could immagine part of their offensive function would be to build big old guns and such to take down enemy strong points. The only problem I see is with the stacking restriction - how do you get them next to the enemy fortification w/o risking expensive damage in a counter attack, or block the way for regular combat units? Any thoughts on that?

This is a good idea. Engineers could build a super heavy gun emplacement two tiles away from the enemy fort. Once built, the gun emplacement would have a range of two tiles. They could bomb anything within two hexes reducing fortifications, entrenchment, and readiness as per Wolfe's recommendation above. And, if we follow your idea, we could leave Rockets as a solely strategic item, which sounds good to me.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Night:

But as we all know Artiliry is part of Corps and Armies in SC.

It is currently posited as part of "infantry weapons," which is a separte researchable category. This seems perfectly appropriate, given the scale and design schematic.

If you want MORE artillery... IE, the German sIG-33 which was put into service in 1936, but used effectively as a howitzer oh, until 1943 or so, when the Germans began using their 120-mm mortar, then, you can research "infantry weapons" ... or not, as you choose.

This research category could be presumed to also include combat engineers with flame-throwers and assorted explosives, and "heavy-MG" infantry detachments, and perhaps, armored cars used as the "hardened tip of the assault arrow" and, well, whatever else you can summon or imagine as... "infantry weapons."

We do want to keep the game-board/screen uncluttered, true?

Since there is no stacking, (... and I for one am REALLY glad for that, and have elaborated WHY, elsewhere) it surely would be problematical to have all these separate weapons systems deployed on the board.

**Now, having said all that, I too wouldn't mind seeing the "rockets" category changed around a little.

My suggestion was this: a new category of "heavy artillery/rockets" where L1 and L2 (... slightly improved as to potency and range... not much room to significantly increase strength here) would be CONCENTRATED artillery-type formations, mobile and/or static, and L3 would be the ground-to-ground rockets such as Nebelwerfer, and L4 would be the V-1, and L5 would be the V-2.

And, since we CAN buy earlier versions of EACH type of combat unit, well, you could then purchase artillery, or ground-based rockets as needed (... assuming of course, that you have reached, or allowed, in your scenario, in the editor, L3 rockets)

[Yep, these WOULD be one effective way to counter fortifications and reduce city-defenses in lieu of merely using bombers. Also, they could be used as "coastal artillery"... after all, as is, the shore bombardment tactic seems a mite one-sided.]

No sense going further than that on rockets however, since we are NOT re-enacting post-WW2 advances; also, I personally would limit the L4 & L5 V-1 and V-2 to Germany ONLY.

NO other Major Power had these... why should they be allowed for USA or UK or any other country?

It wasn't until AFTER the war that US and USSR "kidnapped" those spoils of war, IE, German rocket scientists and research papers at places like Peenemunde and Nordhausen, that the West could even BEGIN to contemplate... rockets.

Now, I have expressed my preferences. As you all are now doing.

That doesn't mean that I EXPECT... ANY of my own suggestions to be implemented. In that regard, all of your suggestions are about as good and appropriate as any of mine.

But, like you'all, I sure do enjoy making them!

[ May 28, 2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[ev]

Thanks for your imput Desert Dave:

I did not know we could buy old tech units in SC2. That is great! The Russian Front is so vast, and new tech units are so expensive... There are sometimes in which you cannot afford those high tech weapons. If we can buy old tech tanks, then we definitely do not need the tank destroyers, can buy lower tech tanks to do the job...

On the other hand, any chance the "infantry weapons" research would imporve on both tanks and infantry? Tank Groups included all those infantry and artillery men together with the tanks. And, in case the default scenario does not provide so, could we change that with the editor?

[Edwin P.]

Armor research improves the armor unit's Armor and Infantry attack and defense factors. Thus its Soft Defense and Soft Attack rating improves along with its Armor Attack and Armor Defense ratings. This makes armor units substantially stronger in SC2.

[ May 28, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

I don't remember exactly myself, but you are correct about the "turretless" tank... either the Swiss or Sweden had it. There was a big debate back then, about if it should even be called a tank, since it was really more of a tank destroyer (ie a self-propelled anti-tank weapon).

If the game was to have only Infantry Corps, then I would certainly go for having only Tank Corps. But in SC1 we were pitching Tank Corps against Infantry Armies. If we are going to have Infantry Corps and Infantry Armies we need a tank formation which corresponds to the larger of the two infantry formations. Else, as soon as the defender can make a line of Infantry Armies, we'll be stuck in a stalemate.

The last sentence is really the gist of why you feel there should be Tank "Armies". If you think in terms of units lining up frontage to frontage, then smashing into each other... then yes, your Tank "Corp" won't defeat a Infantry "Army". But I'm sure you realize thats not the way it worked (unless it was early Russians). It really comes down to a design decision on how Mr H wants to represent the Tank Groups ability to concentrate its firepower against a selected portion of the defenders line. And thats assuming we don't make the distinction between "classical" blitzkrieg and the "modified" blitzkrieg which came about because of the infantries anti-tank weapons.

[Blashy]

Cool stuff, but I see micro managing creep in.

IMHO, I'm pretty sure HC is on the right path, i.e; fixing issues discovered in SC, tweaking current units from player input, 2-3 new types of units (enough IMHO), bigger map.

I'm really not worried, I'm confident the game will live up to my expectations and more.