I want more Combined Arms,..What about you?

[SeaMonkey]

First up, Rockets need to have a cheaper purchase price...they are artillery. I know I can get this done with the editor...no problem.

I want more Rocks, Paper, Scissors, which means ditching Amphib tech. Give UK 6 tiles, USA 8 tiles, Italy 5 tiles, Germany and USSR 4 or even 3 tiles range.

We need airpower to evolve to more efficient ground attacking, combat support. Which means the morale and readiness reduction due to attacks will be substantially higher and strength loss should increase as research levels attain the maximum. This will apply to carriers also when attacking other naval units and to a lesser degree, land units.

We want the counter research for airpower, which is of course anti-air tech that can be applied to any unit, fortification, city, port, or resource. Any others?

What's the drawbacks? Obviously, with these new tweaks, which are quite historical, there will be more parameters competing for our MPPs. That's a good thing, not to mention the introduction of new strategical paths.

Ohhh...the maladies of it all!

[Liam]

I have mentioned this already in various threads. If rockets were cheaper, we'd buy them. Axis never buy an Engineer, because they really can't do much, defense is not the major power of SC2, offense rules and is favored.. Engineers being so vulnerable should be cheaper, perhaps corps price if they're so destructable as they're sitting targets. Several Air units with 2-3 Bars can kill that engineer of what over 300 mpps? Is it really worth buying it and placing in a theatre like France?

Rockets being cheaper, would help. See Rockets cannot move then attack! Russians had mobile Rocket launchers, Katusha?

Why not have mobile rockets, the Allies had them on ships, in the air and though I'm not sure the West ever had them mobile, I'm pretty sure the Germans did. These may not have been V-1s or V-2s but regardless! The point is that the biggest impact of rockets with their limited range is they're too vulnerable to deploy on the frontlines and rarely see combat. In a game on average 2 rockets will be fired several times, meanwhile an air unit will do 100 operations!

See the point?

They should be cheaper if they're not tweaked to be more versatile.. That way you actually apply them to a real game. Unless you're modding, they do not have any real impact on SC2 and will not ever be used by a player who wishes to win.

I use my rockets as Garrison units as the USSR and I sell my chits in them for the Germans.

I'd love a mobile Rocket that could travel 2 or 3 hexes then reign down Terror on a Unit form a distance. it'd be a deadly weapon!

P.S. how long does it take deploy a V-1 V-2? A week? A game turn? Mobility wouldn't be bad or unrealistic?

[Retributar]

Ahhh!!!...the 'Subject' of 'Rockets'!. I would very-much like to see a way to harass or strike back at the British while they incessantly pound occupied France to Oblivion with their endless Bomber Sorties!.

Here's how!....

http://www.v2rocket.com/start/deployment/wizernes.html

Schotterwerk Nordwest SNW Ersatz KNW, Bauvorhaben 21 - B21

in 1943, the German Army began work on the second of several giant hardened bunkers, intended for launching 40-50 V2 rockets at London each day.

In 1943, Hitler's forces faced their first battlefield defeats. These reverses of fortune for the Wehrmacht led Hitler to make secret weapons V1 and V2 a top priority program. The construction of several hardened launch sites for V2 rockets is undertaken along the coasts of France. It is in October of 1943 that the Todt organization begins construction, close to Saint-Omer, of the one of the most imposing bunkers related to the program V2 - THE CUPOLA, the domed bunker. The Todt organization entrusted the work to large German companies and they moved in a mountain of construction hardware such as, earth-moving & drilling equipment, concrete batching and mixing plants, etc.,

By November of 1943, construction had been started on the dome, along with the tunnel excavation at the base of the quarry. Although aware in Nov. 1943 of the existence of an abnormal building site close to Saint-Omer, the Allies were slow in targeting the bunker for air raids. Conventional bombing of the site began in March of 1944 with little effectiveness, the dome-protected underground work was already completed. More than 3000 tons of bombs were dropped, damaging the close villages and upsetting the roads to the building site. But, the CUPOLA remained intact. Work on the project continued at a fast pace even through 229 air-raid warnings.

On April 27, 1944, 16 U.S. Army Air Corp planes dropped (128) one-thousand-pound bombs on the target of Wizernes with good results, losing one aircraft in the action. On June 22, 1944, the U.S. 303rd flew a morning mission to Wizernes with a small force of 14 B-17s. This Wizernes mission was ineffective due to a heavy cloud cover. After a two minute bomb run, the bombs fell short in a wooded area east of the target and one B-17 was shot down by anti-aircraft guns. In total, sixteen raids were carried out against Wizernes by Allied air forces. Allied pilots reported heavy, accurate flak batteries in the bunker area. The damage inflicted on the area was destruction of the railway, communications and road networks near the bunker. Although the bunker was not destroyed by the bombings, it was logistically unusable.

It was not until July 17, 1944 that an attack by Allied bombers proved somewhat successful. RAF Lancaster bombers rained down the new 6-ton "Earthquake" Tallboy bombs. Although the dome remained intact, the RAF bombers dropped their bombs all around the dome. Three of the Tallboys exploded next to the tunnels, one burst just under the dome, and another burst in the mouth of one tunnel. The whole hillside collapsed, undermining the dome support, and covering up the two rocket vertical entry ways.

General Walter Dornberger reported that although the contruction itself remained largely intact, the earth surrounding the bunker was so "churned up" that the site must be abandoned. It was believed that the dome would soon collapse also. This was probably an exaggeration based on Dornberger's own opinion of the dome- Dornberger had always been against fixed launching sites for he feared Allied bombing would hamper V2 operations. The Todt engineers disputed this finding, but the Allied invasion of France and dwindling supplies prevented any further construction. At the end of July, 1944, Hitler ordered the site abandoned, along with the Roquetoire guidance bunker. Soon the V2 would be deployed exclusively on mobile launchers in Belgium, Holland and Germany.

*** 'St. Omer' is just a little S.E.of 'Calais!'. *** Just right beside the Red-Marker >>> 'N-43'.

[ October 11, 2006, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Colin I]

SeaMonkey - combined arms is simple. Air attacks and naval bombardment should inflict very large if temporary morale and readyness losses but almost no strength loss.

This means when used alone they have limited value but when followed up with a ground assault help a lot as the defender is already softened up. This is historical - Allied air actually inflicted very few direct casualties in Normandy but was very effective in less direct ways such as interdicting enemy supplies and tank movements and restricting operational effectiveness.

This also solves engineer problem - you can't kill it from the air alone.

Air and navel should both still do strategic damage and reduce fortifications - they were better at hitting large fixed targets.

[SeaMonkey]

Good point Liam, we do need self-propelled variation of artillery(ie.Rockets).

How about after you have researched mobilty to the second level then the scoot and shoot characteristics kick in for artillery, a faster in-battery sequence.

Colin, I hear you, your of course correct. So how about as you said, let's apply the interdiction capability for air units as they obtain the upper levels?

The effect is a reduction in supply and the accompanying reduction in APs for the targeted unit.

I'm for any ideas that incorporate historical effects with the addition to strategic variation for SC2.

[Colin I]

Like the AP reduction very much from interdiction - if the programming will handle it I'd very much like to see this.

[Liam]

I think to have Air turned only into a readiness and morale reducing weapon, is one thing. Air is supposed to include DiveBombers, like the faked Stuka, Sturmovik, or even the converted Tank Killing Hurricane. The Last the Hurricane was noted by men in Normandy. I recall a Tanker saying we passed dozens of Burnt and charcoaled Tigers in our Shermans and breathed a sigh of relief we wouldn't have to fight them. So did Air kill Ground? Much of the time it didn't... though in cases it actually did, just much less than SC2 simulates. The fact of strength point losses I think is supposed to be mutually reflect the loss in Morale and Strength the latter translating into effective fighting strength rather than actual equipment. Seeing that you can rebuild a unit, it actually does! At a reduced cost

Air shouldn't be as powerful as it is, granted! 4 strength points or 5 knocked off with an airstrike? Hmmm... By the time Barbarossa begins and by the time I'm outside Leningrad or Moscow this doesn't present much of a challenge to me taking those cities! The worse aspect is the supply to land units, which doesn't plague air. Air didn't cover so much territory in Russia

Plus The Russian Airforce is way too pathetic for words and should possess an evolving AirForce

[SeaMonkey]

Yeh, but think about it Liam...have you hit a city with level 3 AAR.

I've blunted more than one Luftwaffe air campaign against my Russian cities with it.

The cost to the side is research at 75 MPPs/chit and 10/level to apply, pretty cheap when compared to reinforcing air units.

Now, like I first proposed, Air causing strength losses is no big deal as long as the receiving side has the opportunity to apply the counter, AAR.

[Honch]

The problem is that SC2 is not a Corps level game as advertised. Its basically an Army level game at the current scale. If it was corps level, Germany would start off with about a dozen corps in addition to the armies on the Polish border in 1939. This precludes the separation of rockets and/or artillery as separate units. It even makes individual tank groups questionable except by the USSR later in the war who employed "tank armies".

In my scenario I am mulling the option of removing "Corps" as a unit. I would replace "Army" with "Infantry Group". 1-2 strength is Regiment, 3-4 Brigade, 5-6 Division, 7-8 Corps, 9-10 Army. But again, I would end up filling the entire map with infantry units.

Operational artillery and rocket groups just have no place at all at this scale. They must be considered as part of the infantry and tank groups. Strategic rockets are part of "Bombers".

I would then use the "Corps" slot for Naval Air. I have already started the process of replacing "Engineers" with "Militia".

[Liam]

You're absolutely right AAR is uberDeadly to Bombers. I do not bother to buy a German bomber anymore, you will die trying... Of course I never seem to achieve freebie AAR tech like most, I never get past 1, but 3 or 4, WHOA, excellent defense. You want to play a PBEM, which side? Are you in Panzerliga?

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Yeh, but think about it Liam...have you hit a city with level 3 AAR.

I've blunted more than one Luftwaffe air campaign against my Russian cities with it.

The cost to the side is research at 75 MPPs/chit and 10/level to apply, pretty cheap when compared to reinforcing air units.

Now, like I first proposed, Air causing strength losses is no big deal as long as the receiving side has the opportunity to apply the counter, AAR.

[SeaMonkey]

No Panzerliga for this Texan. I usually don't get around to completing to many games of the same campaign when the SC platform stabilizes. Usually after a half a dozen, the recognized strategical paths get a little redundant.

I like playing customs at that point. It puts you in the unknown position of not knowing what to expect, like it was for the real players of WW2. Its almost like being a SC virgin all over again.

I would very much like to play a real veteran of SC, the honor would be all mine. I'm a little leary at the proximity of the new patch though, I'd hate to start over, been there done that.

What about it HC, anytime soon, like a two week window? Doesn't matter if its compatible with 1.04. Are we going to see a compatible 1.05?

If your game, send your Axis move, bradtap@aol.com

[Liam]

SeaMonkey, my thoughts on HC, is that usually his patches come quickly. I'm guessing we'll see 1.5 in about 2 to 4 weeks...

I just don't know, though I'd like to hear if the 1.4s are upgradeable. Does it matter to you either way? How quickly do your games progress?

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

No Panzerliga for this Texan. I usually don't get around to completing to many games of the same campaign when the SC platform stabilizes. Usually after a half a dozen, the recognized strategical paths get a little redundant.

I like playing customs at that point. It puts you in the unknown position of not knowing what to expect, like it was for the real players of WW2. Its almost like being a SC virgin all over again.

I would very much like to play a real veteran of SC, the honor would be all mine. I'm a little leary at the proximity of the new patch though, I'd hate to start over, been there done that.

What about it HC, anytime soon, like a two week window? Doesn't matter if its compatible with 1.04. Are we going to see a compatible 1.05?

If your game, send your Axis move, bradtap@aol.com

[SeaMonkey]

If we are compatible(1.04 -> 1.05), then I'm ready to begin. Usually I average a turn a day, so we get through a year of gametime about every two weeks.

Sometimes I get more turns in on weekends, but with a 24/7 lab to run that is at the mercy of the petroleum industry, there can be days of no game action.

HC? Betas? any comments on compatibility? Is it to early?

[Hubert Cater]

SeaMonkey,

Unfortunately with the amount of changes being thrown in with v1.05 it will not be compatible with previous versions. Also, we are at least a few weeks off with the next patch release...

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[SeaMonkey]

Thanks HC, you take your time, for we are not worthy of your endeavors.

There is so much more in this game than the compensation price, we are grateful.

Well Liam, let's wait, but as soon as 1.05 is out........"I'm coming to get you".