SC2: Advanced Tactics Announced! (Psych)

[Nupremal]

Guderian was also a good strategist. I forgot that the Special forces were able to do that! Thanks for reminding me.

Coastal guns are not too bad an idea I might decide to add them for some of the nations.

[Bill101]

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

...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.

I actually think this is an argument FOR including Soviet artillery units. Give them just 1AP (allowing motorization to give them another), then every time the Soviets get a breakthrough they will be likely to outrun their artillery and we will be able to recreate Manstein's methods. Without separate artillery units we can't as organic upgrades won't recreate this situation.

As this had strategic consequences I think it should be represented in a strategic game.

[Bill101]

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.

I'm afraid that this isn't the case. It is true that they weren't terribly successful in causing damage, although production in London was hindered by the constant alarms caused by V1s, and the attacks on the port of Antwerp 'caused considerable damage and greatly hindered the operation of the port' (Alfred Price, The Last Year of the Luftwaffe, 2001, page 89).

However, and most importantly, there are a number of drawbacks to using scripts to represent rockets:

1) There is no financial cost involved.

2) It is hard to vary their targets - they were used in NW Europe in 1944-45 but what if the Soviets have captured the Romanian oilfields and I, as the Axis player, want to use them to destroy the oilfields and prevent them from supplying the Soviet economy? Or if I want to use them elsewhere? There could be plenty of different situations and it could actually be a nightmare to script all the variables.

3) Rockets had a noticeable strategic effect, but not in the way intended: they diverted a lot of allied air power away from bombing Germany and German troops and into locating and destroying the launching sites. Having them as units makes them targets, which means that their attacks can be disrupted. There is no ability to directly replicate this with scripts.

[arado234]

thetwo I never was intending to sound nit picky.Sorry if I come across that way.I do agree with you in that this game is getting maxed out with all the different types of units.My only real question was if the Russians arenot allowed seperate Artty.units then do you think they should recieve something in return considering what they spent on them?

[thetwo]

Arado, I am considering your question. Give me a day or two to think. I'll get back to you. We may be approaching the limits of what the simulation can handle before we change the nature of the simulation, if you know what I mean. I will post here with a fuller response.

[thetwo]

Soviet artillery

Arado, these are the best I've been able to come up with.

1. If rockets/kamikazes are in the game, restrict the Soviets to tech two in the technology and use this as a replacement for artillery. Since these can't respond with defensive fires, they would only be effective in trying to beat down one German unit. This would take them out of a tactical role and place them into an operational role or something similar. The three square range at tech level two would not be a drawback, per se, because they can't support defensively and might actually benefit in support of a breakthrough by allowing more room for attacking units. A bit of a stretch, but not one that overbalances. The research investment to get to level two would also push the cost a little to replicate the investment in tubes.

2. If unit upgrades are used, allow Soviets one additional point of upgrades. This might backfire. German artillery was fewer in number of tubes and stretched more thinly over later in the war, but much more effective. U.S. artillery was numerous and well-supplied and late in the war had VT fuses and was better used than Soviet artillery.

[arado234]

Thetwo I see what you mean about trying to get this right.It doesnt look to easy