Ship Launching in SET HARBORS!

[JerseyJohn]

Suggestion for ship production and harbors.

There’s still a flaw in the game where warships arrive and can be placed in any port controlled by the owning country. This should be changed for obvious reasons.

In v1.06 the AI does a good job of blocking the North Sea route to the Atlantic. But there is little point to such strategies when Germany can choose to have it’s later cruiser and pair of battleships, all three of which would have been laid down before the war, enter the game on the French Atlantic coast!

My suggestion would be that at the start of the game each player chooses which home port he controls at that time is working on each of the ships he’s got in the quay, and that’s where the ship later appears upon completion.

Captured Ports:

If an enemy port is captured and it has ships under construction, they should fall under the control of the invading player, but at their present state of construction, and the capturing player needs to pay the remaining construction cost before they can be completed. This can be done at any time after taking possession of the port, but each turn in which it isn’t done is a turn where no work is done on the vessels.

-- During the actual war, there were numerous French warships that sat unfinished till after the country was liberated and they were completed and launched after the war.

[Edwin P.]

Excellent point, Jersey John.

This also gives the German player a way to rapidly build up the size of their navay if they wish to launch a battle for the Atlantic.

I would also like to see a player able to buid submarine pens (fortified bunkers) in ports. During WWII submarines in these bunkers were practically invulnerable to allied bombing raids.

Moreover, I was reading that the Germans by the end of the war had reduced the average production time of submarines from 27 weeks to 8 weeks thru the application of mass production techniques to submarine building. The subs would be constructed in sections and the sections welded together to complete the submarine.

There should be a way in SC2 to recreate this as it would definitely make for a more viable battle for the Atlantic if you could produce subs in just 2 months, instead of 6 months.

[Moonslayer]

Perhaps a new technology which reduces build time of ships and/or planes and/or tanks by one month per level down to a minimum of 50% of the original build time.

I am always fond of new technologies to research.

[Exel]

We have two production related techs already, they could simply be made to reduce production times as well.

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks Edwin, and I agree with your point, the submarine pens were all but invulnerable to air attack.

Throughout the war production time was steadily reduced in the United States. Of course, having unlimited resources combined with massive man and woman power helped things quite a bit.

Sabotage on BBs already down the slipways must have been very difficult as the French didn't do it on the way out and, incredibly, neither did the Germans!

-- Moonslayer, same here, but it never seems possible to do anywhere near as much research as we'd like. Which is good, WWII was a war filled with possibilities and few countries could look into more than a handful of them.

[JerseyJohn]

Exel,

Yeah, but is there any way to assign a specific harbor, or even the original home harbors, to ships in pre-war production?

I could have sworn I'd seen that feature listed somewhere, but if it exists I can't find it.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Suggestion for ship production and harbors.

There’s still a flaw in the game where warships arrive and can be placed in any port controlled by the owning country. This should be changed for obvious reasons.

Agreed 100%

Maybe buildingtime and price should rise according to the distance between the desired dockyard and your home dockyard.

[jon_j_rambo]

Got agree on this one far as realism. Shipyards aren't like a M.A.S.H. unit. Far as playability, I kind of like it the way it is.

[JerseyJohn]

Brothers Xwormwood and Rambo,

The increased cost is an interesting way to handle it, but how does a ship being constructed in Hamburg end up completed in Bordeaux? To me that's the basic inconsistency, Germany can simply bypass the North Sea and North Atlantic as it's prewar heavy cruisers and BBs, laid down in the Baltic, are finished and magically appear on the French coast.

I agree with the playability part, and in that sense I love it.

To me the only abstraction that makes sense is, because each turn represents more than enough time for the ships to move from the Baltic to the French coast and we make the assumption they weren't intercepted along the way. Which is a bit of a stretch.

[SeaMonkey]

Got to agree with JJ, in wartime, a completed hull of a major warship is aloud to transgress hostile waters to a port for final fitting without enemy intervention?

That's more than just a stretch, especially when we're talking about a proactive RN.

[JerseyJohn]

Thank you SM, here's hoping Hubert feels the same way, and, dare we even think it, patch 1.06a -- OH! :eek: Nice shot Hubert, difficult angle.

[SeaMonkey]

Well if we're going to ask, then I think there's a consensus for surface raiders also.

Anyone for Bombers in range?

[JerseyJohn]

I'd definitely go for surface raiders, which would include giving all battleship and cruiser units a hunt rating, exactly the way submarines have them. Except, of course, surface ships can't run silent.

This would open the way to having a combined surface and U-boat campaign against Allied shipping in the Battle of the Atlantic, exactly as it was in WWII, and might have been if (as we were discussing elsewhere) Germany's Z-Plan had been followed instead of the unexpected (especially for Italy!) war in 1939.

I'm not familiar with the bombers in range question, but if I were, I'm sure I'd support your view of it, SeaMonkey. So my vote goes by way of proxy to my tall friend from Texas.

[jon_j_rambo]

Tall Friend from Texas? I bet my Little Green Friend knows this stuff

[SeaMonkey]

No doubt he does Rambo, but to truly simulate the commerce interdicting characteristics of aircraft, they would have to have the "hunt" ability too (in range of convoy routes).

This leads us to the Pacific, where the island bases were so important for power projection.

[JerseyJohn]

Ah, now I understand the issue, we're talking about bombers being able to bomb commerce routes.

Yes, definitely -- and I'd vote the same thing for airfleets. There's tons of footage of German medium bombers rigged to carry torpedoes hitting the Archangel/Murmansk convoys.

-- Of course that Little Green Friend knows his stuff, with regard to SC-1&2 I'd say he's proven himself, many times over, to be the world's leading authority.

But, really, we aren't talking about game skill so much as adjusting game mechanics to reflect historical reality.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Sir Jersey --- Your the resident authority on history, no worries regarding your knowlege & Icon status as a Made Man. After this Korean visit, I'm seeing the forienger POV.

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks Brother Rambo, Appreciated, You've become our window to the world.

Really enjoyed the photos you took during your trip. You've got a great eye for interesting scenes.

[jon_j_rambo]

DMZ here I come! I play on firing a 5-iron shot at Kim Sung ill !!!

[JerseyJohn]

The question is, what would be shot from the other side?!

-- That was one strange war by any standard.

And one strange situation. When the country was divided, an American army officer drawing a line across a map with a straight edge ruler, it was never intended to be permanent, only a temporary measure.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Exel:

We have two production related techs already, they could simply be made to reduce production times as well.

For historical reasons I would prefer seperate techs for different unit types. Why?

For though mass production techniques could be applied to sub they could not be applied to the much larger battleships. Also, some nations focused their efforts on mass producing submarines (Germany) while others focused their efforts on mass producing bombers (USA).

Seperate techs also force players to make a choice as to where they want to focus their production resources.

Imagine this:

Submarine Production Tech - reduces production time and cost

Bomber Production Tech - reduces production time and cost

Now the German player has to make a choice. He can only invest in one as he needs MPPs to also purchase units. Which strategy does he follow? The sub strategy or the bomber strategy? The decision he makes in 1940 will affect his war making capability in later years.

Seperate production techs means that the choice you make early in the war affects you later in the war. In my view, a more historical option than simply reducing the production time of all units.

[ February 27, 2007, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Moonslayer:

Perhaps a new technology which reduces build time of ships and/or planes and/or tanks by one month per level down to a minimum of 50% of the original build time.

Agreed, I would like to see techs for

Submarine Mass Production

Bomber Mass Production

Rocket Mass Production

For game balance reasons, I would not apply it to air Fleets. And for historical reasons I would not apply it to carriers, battleships, armies or corps.

[ February 27, 2007, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Rockets are pretty cool in SC2.

[Edwin P.]

Agreed, at tech level 3 or 4 they are awesome against already damaged units, and if you could reduce their cost and production time via research more players would try them out.

As it is, I rarely encounter them in HvH play.

[ February 27, 2007, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]