SC2: Advanced Tactics Announced! (Psych)

[dhucul]

SC2: Advanced Tactics, the newest expansion for the Strategic Command 2 series from award winning designer Hubert Cater takes all of the new features from the successful SC2: Weapons and Warfare and SC2: Patton Drives East to the next level:

Features incude:

1. The ability of battleships, crusisers and bombers in range of convoy routes to interdict those routes as subs currently do.

2. Overland convoy routes from capital to capital, for example, Romania to Germany and Germany to Italy.

3. Varying degrees of neutrality. A nation with 50% or more activation towards one side will allow ships of that side to use their ports for supply and land and air units to draw supply from their cities using their rail networks. A nation with 75% or more activation to one side allows land and air units of that side to operate or land transit through their territory. Attacks are not permiited from their territory until 100% activation.

4. More than one convoy per major. Each major can have more than one convoy route active at once. For example, the USA can convoy to the UK AND USSR at the same time.

5. Tactical commanders are available to purchase and add to each land, air or naval unit as an upgrade. Each tactical commander comes with a special ability that is available to that unit. Some commanders included are Paulus, Student, Guderian etc.

6. The artillery unit has been removed and is now available as an upgrade on most land units.

7. A new "atomic research" category has been added.

8. A new "atomic bomb" unit has been added. Nations would require level 5 in atomic research to build a bomb. When the bomb is used, the unit is destroyed, every resource and rail in a tile that the unit is used on is permanently removed from the map. Units in the tile are heavily damaged and units entering that tile will receive some damage.

9. A new "garrison" unit has been added. This low level infantry unit has one action point, cannot leave the home country or annexed territories and has no ability to attack. It provides only defense.

10. Amphibious attacks can now occur against occupied coastal tiles. If the defending unit is not destroyed, the attacking amphibious unit is.

11. Oil inventory. Each major accumulates oil inventory from its oil resources each turn. These oil inventories are depleted as mechanized and naval units move and attack. When the inventories run out, these units cannot attack and their movement is limited to one action point.

12. New scenarios: Fall Weiss and Storm of Steel Expanded (The European Theatre on a much smaller scale).

13. And much more.....................

OK, I just woke up. I wanted to spice up the forum as its been a little quiet.

[thetwo]

Excellent!

[arado234]

-How expensive will it be to research and build the A bomb?

-Will the country(s)in question have to have access to all the proper resources(heavy water, etc, etc)?

-How will it be used(by bomber,v rocket)?

-Will it have an effect on objective squares(Wipe out Berlin and Munich does Germany surrender)?

-Will it have an effect on overall morale of the bombed nation(Can it cause a country to surrender like Japan did)?

[Bill101]

Great list, I've put a few questions beneath some of your suggestions:

1. The ability of battleships, cruisers and bombers in range of convoy routes to interdict those routes as subs currently do.

I can't help but wonder whether this would make submarines rather obsolete.

6. The artillery unit has been removed and is now available as an upgrade on most land units.

I can see why, but there is a danger of adding complexity to the game play, and also, how would this work in combat? Are you thinking of an upgrade that just boosts a unit's soft and hard attack factors, or something that gives the unit the full artillery capability as we currently know it?

10. Amphibious attacks can now occur against occupied coastal tiles. If the defending unit is not destroyed, the attacking amphibious unit is.

Tricky one this! I see the argument for it (e.g. Malta) but I wonder if the destruction of the attacker if the assault fails is not a bit much?

11. Oil inventory. Each major accumulates oil inventory from its oil resources each turn. These oil inventories are depleted as mechanized and naval units move and attack. When the inventories run out, these units cannot attack and their movement is limited to one action point.

Realistic, but my worry is that this would add a level of complexity to the game without giving as much benefit as one would like. It would also have to be done in such a way that a calculator doesn't become a necessary gaming accessory, where players will spend time adding up how many units they have on the map that they might want to move and dividing it by the number of oil resources held. There is a danger here of slowing down game play... and this is a pretty important factor.

[dhucul]

Abomb:

The abomb unit would require level 5 atomic reasearch which would have costly research chits. Once acheived you could build as many abombs as you want but each would have a 3-6 month production delay. So, in reality, only the USA would be able to reach that mark by 1945 or so unless Germany, USSR or UK drastically damage their war effort trying for it. I would say France and Italy have little to zero chance. I would even set build limits to allow 2 or 3 bombs for USA, 1 for Germany, UK and USSR and none for everyone else. Other post-war mods could use the abomb unit for hydrogen bombs, chemical weapons etc.

The unit would have the same range as that of the nations bombers and would be used up on use. Any resource (city, fort, port etc.) plus any rail in the tile would be permanently removed from the map. Any units in the tile or next to the tile would take large losses. Any units moving into or through the tile would take smaller losses. (Radiation) Morale hit on a nation would be huge.

Surface raiders:

I would suggest that battleships, cruisers and bombers would have only small and infrequent impact on convoy routes, still making subs worth the investment.

Amphib attack:

Maybe have failed amphibs take a heavy hit but not full destruction. This would force them back to a friendly port.

Artillery:

This upgrade would add to the attack and defense values just as IW and AT but would not give the two tile strike that there is right now.

Oil:

CEAW has a great oil feature. You start out with an oil counter for beginning inventory. Every turn the counter increases a fixed amount for every oil resource you control (or have a convoy with) and reduces slightly every time you move a tank, mech infantry, plane or ship. When the counter gets low you know that you need to capture more oil or start to leave units static. I would suggest that 3-4 oil wells under your control should provide sufficient oil to maintain a large mechanized armed forces. Germany would need to capture one of the Caucasus or Middle East by 1943.

[dhucul]

Tactical Commanders:

Also imagine this:

You add Student as an upgrade to the German FSJ. Their attack value goes up.

You add Guderian to a tank unit and their attack and movement values go up.

You add Paulus to any infantry unit and they can ignore low supply for a few turns.

I would argue that Patton and Rommel are also tactical commanders.

HQ (strategic commanders) would still be used.

[Armuss]

As it is possible download this?

[Bill101]

As it is possible download this?

No, it's just a discussion on possible features for a future game, call it Dhucul's wishlist.

[Colin I]

Re: Artillery - seems to me we should just go back to 5 levels of Infantry warfare and assume artillery is factored into this.

Also there are no strategic antitank units - would lose this in favour of more gradations in AT technology. In this respect earlier versions of SC2 worked better (simpler, more accurate in a strategic game).

Agree with most other items on the wish list though.

[Nupremal]

Agree strategically there should be no artillery or at units for the most part - but those are really for the more operational scenarios. However 3 tech levels is about as high as infantry should go because really there was little to no advancement in the actual technology of artillery, which was pretty much at its peak.

[Bill101]

I actually think that having a few artillery counters makes sense, as they represent concentrations of heavy artillery that can be moved to bolster units at vital points.

One classic example of this, admittedly from WWI, is when in August 1914 Austrian heavy artillery was sent to deal with the Belgian forts. Here, the deployment of heavy artillery had a strategic impact that affected the whole of the German offensive on the Western Front.

I guess I'm saying that I don't have a problem with artillery units as they are, though perhaps they can gain experience a little quicker than I would ideally like (the same applies to AA).

[Nupremal]

In my campaign I am having just the russians having some artillery units because of their heavy "artillery breakthrough divisions" they had later in the war.

I was also thinking maybe to give the germans one for their big rail guns - maybe mod the icon to look like one too. Have not decided to do that yet though.

[Colin I]

But on this scale how different is a Soviet Artillery army? Range should only be 1 tile. I can see reducing entrenchment several steps but does this justify a new unit type?

I can see a rail gun just for colour (only operational move) but wonder how much these add.

[arado234]

I like the idea of just the Russians having the actual Artty. counters considering the amount they built.As far as their effectiveness goes, reducing entrenchment and lowering morale plus a slight chance of doing some actual damage would be good.

As far as A.A. and anti tank goes imho just have them as upgrades.

[Colin I]

Agreed there is an argument for the Soviets at least.

Agree about AA and AT except call it upgrades rather than attachments as this suits the SC system. Upgrades are a little inflexible but on the whole I prefer this simplicity to keeping track of attachments.

[Bill101]

I would prefer to hav AA as a separate entity, so that it can be deployed in vulnerable areas to assist in the defence of static resources. For instance, if the allies are bombing the hell out of the Ruhr then in addition to the local AA (which is represented by upgrades to resources) I would like the opportunity to move other AA units there.

This is totally realistic and also had its equivalent in the field, as the Germans deployed dedicated AA divisions in France in 1944 (for all the good it did them).

[arado234]

True about the A.A.Bill but(I know this will stir the pot)the calibre of A.A.guns defending the Ruhr industry werenot very effective against tac. bombers or fighters because of their size(88mm and up)and low rate of fire.They couldnt track fast enough to hit something going over 300 and in the case of fighters over 400 mph(they did get lucky and hit the odd one but not enough to effect the actual striking power of the air unit) .The A.A.units we build can fire at both fighters and tac. bombers because they were usually around 20mm and could track very quickly quickly to fire and also had a high rate of fire.However they didnt have alot of hitting power against strategic bombers flying 5 miles above them.

This I know is being kind of picky but perhaps the A.A.units could be designed somehow to reflect this?Just a thought.

[dhucul]

I believe that artillery "units" should be changed to "fixed" shore gun emplacements such as those seen near many ports and strongpoints in WW2. Artillery should be an upgrade to land units only.

Anti-tank units should be removed as well in favour of garrison units. I plan on doing this in my MOD.

I would also argue that special forces have no place in ETO at this scale. In PTO they work as "marine" divisions. In my mod, I made special forces into infantry "divisions", able to transport from any coastal tile as, at this scale, 99% of coastal tiles would have small ports that could embark smaller units. Embarkation and evacuation of division sized units from small ports was a common occurance in WW2. Dunkirk, Dieppe, Greece, Crete, etc.

Rocket attacks are easy to script and rockets should not be a separate unit. They caused such little damage in WW2 that they are an afterthought. Their only effect was morale drops.

To summarize:

Artillery -> Fixed Shore Guns

Anti-Tank -> Garrison/Militia

Special Forces -> to Division (whether Marine or otherwise)

Rockets -> "Area Weapon" unit (atomic bomb, chemical weapons etc.)

[Colin I]

Agreed, but if we have cheap garrisons and shore guns we need to be able to directly assault occupied tiles from the sea.

[Bill101]

True about the A.A.Bill but(I know this will stir the pot)the calibre of A.A.guns defending the Ruhr industry were not very effective...

This I know is being kind of picky but perhaps the A.A.units could be designed somehow to reflect this?Just a thought.

I see the point but I think that to get this accurately representative we would need both light AA (i.e. the Flak divisions deployed in France) and heavy AA (Flak units equipped with 88mm and 128mm guns that could be deployed to defend against strategic bombers). The only downer is that we'd be helping to complicate the game with more unit types...

[Nupremal]

dhucul - questions/comments:

1 - Artillery - I think the shore guns are accurately represented already by the defensive fire from cities, no? Towns have 0, so they don't normally get to fire back - that could be modded though and probably should be. I am also giving ground units a naval defense value, but naval units have a fairly high evade % so they don't always take damage.

2 - Anti-Tank - They could be used for that but then the upgrades won't work, or do you just set the values and allow for no upgrades or minimal upgrades?

3 - Special Forces - How did you Mod in this ability to transport without a port??? This is a very cool idea but how in the world can that be modded?

[thetwo]

A comment on the suggestion that the Soviets might need special artillery units.

While the Soviets did have a few very large formations permanently formed, they were of limited utility, in my opinion. They took a long time to deploy, good German commanders were able to anticipate the largest barrages and pull their infantry back just before the barrages went in, and the artillery was towed, and so could not follow rapidly moving penetrations well.

Soviet doctrine then, during the Cold War, and today for the handling of organic artillery, as opposed to these special formations, would be sufficient for the purposes of the game. In a focused attack, penetration scenario, the artillery from the divisions, armies, and the front(s) arrayed at the point of attack, would deploy forward for the barrage.

Once the first breakthrough is reported back, some of the artillery would break down to follow it through. The remaining artillery would then have new missions. Rolling barrage ahead of the penetration or seal the penetration to left or right, with indirect fires. The rolling barrage would be discontinued rather quickly if the penetration was affected by mobile forces. Sealing the shoulders of the penetration with long range artillery was considered vital by Soviet combat commanders.

All of this could be done with the organic artillery. If you can get hold of copies of the U.S. Army FM-100 series manuals, (FM100-1, 2, 3) you will see that at every level Soviet/Russian units are artillery heavy. This is a doctrinal constant.

Now, there was a weakness with this doctrine, that was one element of von Manstein's "bleed them to death" strategy. The Soviets always outran their artillery. Hence, his plan to use nodal, moble, armored reserves to punch out the Soviet armored forces beyond the range of the "shoulders."

Bottom line, the Soviets don't really need special artillery units, because organic artillery upgrades will do the job and just because they had the tubes doesn't mean they could make a difference.

[dhucul]

In response to Nupremal:

Special Forces currently have the ability to transport from any coastal tile (albeit amphibious). I changed these to "infantry division".

Yes, cities and ports provide defense but only if they are bombarded by naval units, otherwise, you can put a naval unit right next to a port and just sit there while you invade a country. You can also currently amphibiously invade an empty city without an attack on the amphibs as they approach. Shore gun emplacements should be able to fire at these amphibs and naval units that come within range. The Blucher was destroyed by Norwegian shore guns. There were significant shore gun emplacements at Halden/Oslo, Leningrad, Scapa Flow, Narvik, Taranto, Oran and other military ports such as Karskrona etc. You can also attack shore guns with naval bombardment, air attacks or land attacks and destroy them.

Anti-tank would only be an upgrade on infantry units and tac air. The garrison units would be cheap, but have only one action point and unable to attack. They would also be "locked" into the home country or annexed territory.

[arado234]

thetwo imho they did make a difference especially when the Germans were surrounded or not mobile enough and werenot able to pull back.Then they were just pounded into submission.Also since we are in command shouldnt we have the choice on how we move our Russian troops(not moving out of range of the Artty units).

Thetwo, Russia spent huge amounts of resources to build all their Artty.How would you suggest they be compensated by not being able to be allowed to build the Artty.formations?

Mansteins strategy would only work for so long in reality because of the Allies vastly superior numbers and all the fronts Germany was fighting on.The Russians were also getting better at handling their armored units and could field way more tanks then Germany could ever hope to stop.Plus once there is no room to pull back then Russian Artty.becomes that much more effective.In this game the Allies dont vastly outnumber the Axis,so to compensate maybe the Russians should be the only ones allowed to build Artty.

[thetwo]

Arado, taking your points in order.

Agreed that in some circumstances the Germans could not get away. As to how far to flex tactics in a strategic game, it gets harder to say. I understand what you are saying, of course. It just gets harder to say where to draw the lines on what changes in the game and what doesn't. Also, I wasn't providing the Soviet doctrine info to nit-pick, only as information.

I was offering a justification for not providing a single unit, in game terms, that would deprive a scenario designer of the flexibility of the use of a unit that might be used for all countries. That was the intent of my comments. Just because the Soviets put all those resouces into artillery, it doesn't follow that they "must" be represented. I thought it might be a design option. After all, the true extent of commerce warfare has been dropped too.

Manstein's strategy. Yes, the strategy was not going to work except in isolation and I don't think I said otherwise. Russian handling of their armored formations, we could debate relative effectiveness of leadership with German fuel and armor availability numbers. I am not convinced artillery units are the best option as opposed to increased numbers and there are design alternatives that can allow for greater numbers. The game is flexible and the moders creative.

I thought the design question was whether giving the Russians artillery was worth depriving the designer of the ability of having another unit to play with. I may have been mistaken.

A comment on the Manstein strategy. The strategy I still believe was sound and the "best option" although it could not have won the war. There is a difference. Its goal was to pinch off a penetration, reseal and resecure the original line. If the original line could not have been reestablished right away, it would be attempted at a later date. That was the plan. Whether the Germans could have kept it up for long is another question. It would have reduced casualties and had the Soviets punching at air much of the time. But, as I've noted before, there just weren't enough Germans. (Note: long term, this strategy would have depended on two factors, not one, Soviet demographics and the inefficiency of Soviet agriculture. I'm not certain the second was intentional.)