Night Warfare

[teutonkopf]

I think that night warfare (night bombing, night fighters, naval night gunnery, infrared night sights) should be added. A 'night warfare' technology can be added that would show up on air, naval, and land units. The attacker would specify on each attack how much weight to place on night operations. The result would be that an attacker with a higher night warfare rating that shifts the attack focus towards night warfare would be more successful against a defender with a lower night warfare rating than he would have been if he focused his attack in the daylight hours:

* A low rated 'advanced aircraft' fighter unit with a high 'night warfare' rating would fair well at night against a high rated 'night warfare' bomber unit on a night bombing mission with a high rated 'advanced aircraft' escort unit that has a low 'night warfare' rating. Low rated 'advanced aircraft' with a high 'night warfare' rating would also be instructed to not interdict daylight raids else they be slaughtered by escorts. This reflects the high effectiveness of a low rate 'advanced aircraft' like the Bf-110 as a night fighter in spite of its total uselessness at a daylight fighter.

* A high rated 'night warfare' naval unit like a cruiser would fair well against battleship of greater power but lower 'night warfare' rating.

* A land unit with higher 'night warfare' rating would be more successful in combating a stronger opponent with a weak 'night warfare' rating.

Night warfare was critical in the air war and even more so in the naval engagements of the war. Historically, it was not as critical a factor in the ground war because the germans employed infrared technology very late in the war in Europe. However, modern warfare has amply demonstrated that the infrared night attacks would have had a much greater impact if they had been implemented in an earlier stage of the war. Night Warfare Technology would add a new dimension of strategy to the game along with historical accuracy. This major facet of the technological arms race could be added and yet not make the technology dimension too complicated.

v/r,

tk

[arado234]

teutonkopf I had read where the Germans had fitted some panther model Gs with advanced nite vision optics and they laid a beating on a bucnh of shermans.This happened around the time of the Bulge offensive.I guess this would be kind of hard to program?

[jon_j_rambo]

The dude has a great point. Problem is, with turns being 7 to 14 days, kind of hard to bring into the game model.

[CSS]

Night warfare? On the tactical level absolutely Uber Important, On the deployment scale still an strong arguement. On the operational scale not do able, on the strategic scale impossible, on the Grand strategic scale insanity at best. LOL

[carverrt]

You know, there is merit in this. The SC series has a number of Division level mods that may be able to make use of this. Another example is that the Japanese had a great advantage in night naval surface warfare until early 1943. This might help with future versions of SC.

- Robert

[jon_j_rambo]

@Robert --- Are you the same dude from way back with a new nickname?

[carverrt]

I did have a different nickname; I don't remember what it was. I joined just after SC1 was released - what year was that?

When Battlefront went to the new Forums a couple years back they had to change my nickname.

I hope the old Robert did not make a bad impression on you then...?

Robert

[jon_j_rambo]

What was your old nickname?

[CSS]

Again on the night warfare thingy. On the Grand Strategic Scale it is encompassed into things like +1 naval warfare, tanks ,aircraft ect.

Grand strategey= Funding Home building in the whole USA.

Strategic sacle=Funding Home building in easter or western USA

Operrational scale=Funding Home bulding in Texas

Deployment scale= Building homes in Dallas

Tactical scale= Bulding a home in Dallas

Night wafare is the equivlant of using a 3# hammer VS a 2# hammer actually building a house. In the context the game is GRAND STRATEGIC!

[teutonkopf]

I think Night Warfare can definitely be considered as a valid Grand Strategy. Night bombing was a grand strategy of anglo-american bomber command in the face of the german grand strategy of conventional air power. Night fighters were a german grand strategy to counter the anglo-american grand strategy of night bombing. Night warfare was a german army grand strategy to counter the allied grand strategy of air power. Night naval warfare was an american grand strategy to counter the japanese grand strategy of conventional naval power. In all these cases, night warfare was an effective grand strategy to counter or overcome an enemy's parity or superiority in a particular successful grand strategy. Night warfare is a current american grand strategy in modern warfare. In none of this cases was night warfare an automatic advancement in stride with progress in other technologies alread represented in SC2. An Me-262 or P-51 did not have night warfare capability. On the contrary, Bf-110's and Ju-88's were given night warfare capability that made them potent counters to allied conventional air superiority. A Panther did not automatically have night warfare capability. The japanese superbattleships did not automatically have night warfare capability.

In terms of turn time scope, selecting the percentage of Night Warfare when attacking means you are directing your forces to conduct that percentage of their attacks over a 2-week period at night. A defender automatically has to defend that same percentage at night, but if he doesn't have the Night Warfare capability then he will suffer proportionately to the enemie's night warfare capability. What it in effect accomplishes is a greater chance of success for the attacker than he would otherwise have given the defender's inferior night warfare capability. If I'm facing an enemy that is at parity or superior on a large scale with his success in a certain grand strategy to date, and I come up with a way to really make him suffer or negate his effectiveness on a large scale, ie. Night Warfare, then I would call that a grand strategy of my own. This was demonstrated by the german night fighters, the american naval gunners, and the german army in WW2, and the potential for this technology as a force multiplier is being demonstrated in current modern warfare by the U.S. military.

In land and naval warfare this could be programmed by applying a formulaic reduction to the defenders defensive values and a formulaic increase to the attackers demoralization chances. In air warfare it would be a reduction to the interceptors' air attack values. The interesting thing about introducing night warfare as a percentage is that it would increase the defensive values of bombers without the bombers even having a value of 1 in Night Warfare as long as the interceptors have a Night Warfare value of 0. Night Warfare allows for the simulation of the very intriguing night war over europe and greatly increases the historical accuracy of the game. This would add a whole new dimension to the game relatively easily and would enliven the imaginations of the players. It would add play balance to the allies' material superiority and air power in europe, and to the japanese naval might in the pacific.

In terms of player interface, all attacks would include the option to adjust the night attack percentage. The default could be zero, and it could be adjusted by a pop-up window or by right clicking on the unit before attack in the "Set Mode" submenu. The percentage could be adjusted in increments of 10%, for example. The turn summary and status line (bottom of screen) messages would inform the defender he was being night attacked. Defense would be automatic.

Parenthetically, in terms of programming, a night warfare module could be built and called whenever the night warfare attack percentage is greater than zero. It would then compare the combatants, ie. air vs air, air vs land, air vs naval, naval vs naval, etc. and apply the appropriate modifiers to be passed back to the main routine and applied to the end results.

v/r,

tk

fuhrer-T

[jon_j_rambo]

@fuhrer-T ---

You might have something here.

v/r,

tk

Camp-Rambo

[CSS]

Not really trying to create a I said you said thingy here. I am just trying to define there is a huge unimaginable gap between tactical and stratiegic. All of the implimentations you are seeking are already in the game on a stratiegic level, not tactical.

But Hitler absolutly had ZERO stratiegic sense at all that is why we lost the war, he knew war at a tactical level, and actually could operationally deploy a division, but statiegy let alone Grand Stratiegy was compltetly beyond him.

The unit of time in this game is nearly 2 weeks per turn. I spent 8 years in Special forces in the US Army. We deploy Stratiegicaly, but all of our operation were stictly tactical and low level deployment.

A night raid/bombing mission is ALWAYS tactical.

[jon_j_rambo]

But Hitler absolutly had ZERO stratiegic sense at all that is why we lost the war, he knew war at a tactical level, and actually could operationally deploy a division, but statiegy let alone Grand Stratiegy was compltetly beyond him.

The unit of time in this game is nearly 2 weeks per turn. I spent 8 years in Special forces in the US Army. We deploy Stratiegicaly, but all of our operation were stictly tactical and low level deployment.

A night raid/bombing mission is ALWAYS tactical.

Huh? That is why "we" lost the war because of Hitler, yet you're in the US Army? Please explain, guessing it's a typo soldier.

[CSS]

Rambo,

LOL I am 1st generation American, Full Blooded Prussian and Hanovarian. I did join the American Army and spent 8 years in the Special Forces under Reagan.

[jon_j_rambo]

Glad to have you grafted into The Camp, soldier. Loved your Commander In Chief, we all slept well while you were serving. In terms of my family tree, "we" had a few who lost that little homeland feud called the War Between the States.

and the whole congregation turned in unison and,"Saluted CSS".

-Legend

[teutonkopf]

Not really trying to create a I said you said thingy here. I am just trying to define there is a huge unimaginable gap between tactical and stratiegic. All of the implimentations you are seeking are already in the game on a stratiegic level, not tactical.

But Hitler absolutly had ZERO stratiegic sense at all that is why we lost the war, he knew war at a tactical level, and actually could operationally deploy a division, but statiegy let alone Grand Stratiegy was compltetly beyond him.

The unit of time in this game is nearly 2 weeks per turn. I spent 8 years in Special forces in the US Army. We deploy Stratiegicaly, but all of our operation were stictly tactical and low level deployment.

A night raid/bombing mission is ALWAYS tactical.

CSS, I salute you for your service and loyalty to our nation. I was in the Marines myself. My only exposure to the Army was at jump school. My grandpa was the son of german immigrants and fought as a tank killer against the germans in WWII. I'm sure one of your family elders was up close and familiar with german Panzers also. Tank killer vs german Panzers, German vs Overwhelming Allied Material Superiority -- neither one sounds like an easy job. So lets not kid ourselves, we are wannabees compared to them.

That being said, I realize that us small units like the Marines and Special Forces were not considered very strategic back in the day when Army was still Cold War sized. However, we are considered very strategic assets in these days now that the Army's not so huge anymore, huh? Now, in the massive scale of WWII the Marines and Special Forces may not be considered strategic by some. Heck, we would only represent a few units on the whole map if it were based on the raw numbers that you pointed to earlier. However, we are represented on the map because of our special abilities. Those special abilities are things like airborne, amphibious, marksmanship, etc. Well, those abilities are dependent on technologies that need to be upgraded to improve our capability and survivability. Things like amphibious warfare, long range aircraft, infantry weapons, anti-tanks weapons, etc. You can't just say, 'hey, these Marines like to swim so thats all we need for amphibious warfare' or 'hey, those guys like to run around in the woods at night, so thats all we need for night warfare'. No, you need technology to do that. You need amtracks, bazookas, and night sensors to do all that fun stuff, right?

You keep saying, "Tactical foul, tactical foul -- no tactics allowed! This is for grand strategy thinkers only!" To that I say this: Go play Kasparov Chess if you want grand strategy only! But seriously, you can't get anymore tactical than Infantry Weapons. I cannot think of a single organic weapon of an infantry battalion that would be considered "strategic". :confused: But they are represented in the game since day one. Me and my M-16 are not very strategic despite the fact that I shot the range high in Okinawa (and yes, there were even some Army Special Forces there shooting the course with us Jarheads). However, when the entire U.S. Army has semi-automatic rifles, and the Wehrmacht only has bolt-action rifles, or the Finns have submachine guns and the Russians only have bolt action rifles, then that has a strategic impact on the battlefield. When you give all your infantry night vision scopes and the other guy doesn't have any then that has a major impact on the battlefield. So if you want to say that it is not "strategic" that is fine. However, the game is not purely strategic. There are plenty of tactical technologies in the game. Tactical Anti-tank weapons are needed to counter the "strategy" of Tank Armies! Tactical Night Warware is needed to counter the "strategy" of british Bomber Command! Anti-aircraft radar may be great for the Battle of Britain when both sides are pretty evenly matched. However, it's not going to do me a bit of good if I try to send Advanced Aircraft Level-ZERO Bf-110's against allied P-51's in broad daylight! Radarmen are not going to fly my planes at night, either. I need Bf-110's equipped with night warfare specialized radar and trained night fighter pilots and then I will make the british seriously reconsider the notion that they can avoid bomber losses at night.

In an earlier post you said I need to read about grand strategy. Where am I supposed to read about that, and whats more, I guarantee it wouldn't match up with the current SC2 anyway. I seriously doubt your beloved treatise on "grand strategy" would mention infantry weapons as grand strategy.

That being said, I did look at the manual and there "Naval Warfare" is listed as "Gun Laying Radar" in a beta screenshot. So based on that, your point that Night Warfare is covered by Naval Warfare seems to be correct.

On land, based on the historical reality of the actual war, night warfare did not have much impact because it was implemented too late in the war. So maybe I can see your point there. Plus the fact that you were in Special Forces gives your personal opinion credibility, though I still disagree. I think the night Panthers demonstrated the potential.

Finally, in the air you are totally wrong. The air war at night was grand strategy at its finest. The bombers lost more men over Europe than the Marines did in the Pacific. Strategic Bombing without the Night Bombing option is very historically inaccurate and kinda silly. Its almost as lame as the current SC2 naval warfare. Any Air Force guys out there? Chime in any time you get around to it. The Army and Marines debating Strategic Bombing is kinda silly, but hey, I'm not the one who pulled the "Special Forces" card. LOL.

So how about this: Nightwarfare for ground and air units. Lets call it Night Attack 1-5. I set my Bf110 Night Attack 5 unit to "intercept only" and "night attack = 100%". That way they kick the tar out of british bomber command at night, and hide from the P-51's during the day. Did I say that? I meant: catch up on well deserved sleep during the day! For land units the nightwarfare could have less impact for you strategic crybabies out there. Plus, it would be more historically accurate. We can't have Nachtpanthers driving the allies back into the sea, now can we?

And by the way CSS, you of all people should know that Teutonkopf is not the same as Toetenkopf. So, CSS, you can call me Teufelhunden, which is proper german for U.S. Marine. Devil Dog for short. Hey, that gives me an idea for another pun: Teutonhunden.

v/r,

Teutonhunden, aka Teutonkopf

Fuhrer Teutonicus

[xwormwood]

teutonkopf, uhm, there is no such german word as "hunden".

A dog is a "Hund", while dogs are "hunde".

There is a german movie / book about Stalingrad:

"Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben?" = "(you( dogs, do you want to live forever?"

And the Skull would be a "Totenkopf".

"Toeten" would be "to kill" or "to slay"

Btw.: my "mixture" could be called "one half Bremen and one quarter East Prussian and one quarter Silesian".

[arado234]

Imho the problem with the whole night fighter concept is that now you would have to add in different types of airfleets.The ones we have now are just single engine fighters?You couldnt really add a night fighter capability to them.Would you then not also have to limit the Brits.heavy bombers to nite strategic attacks only?Doesnt sound fair to me.Why would anyone want to use night strategic bombing if Allied daylight raids wipeout cities down to zero and the Germans werenot defending their cities?

As far as Inf.weapons go,im guessing the upgrade is more H.M.G.s,better handheld weapons(flamethrower,etc).Mortars.Maybe it indicates more weapons per unit?

[teutonkopf]

teutonkopf, uhm, there is no such german word as "hunden".

A dog is a "Hund", while dogs are "hunde".

There is a german movie / book about Stalingrad:

"Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben?" = "(you( dogs, do you want to live forever?"

And the Skull would be a "Totenkopf".

"Toeten" would be "to kill" or "to slay"

Btw.: my "mixture" could be called "one half Bremen and one quarter East Prussian and one quarter Silesian".

@xwormwood:

Teufel Hunden is the product of American propaganda and Marine Corps legend. I never bothered researching it's grammar. I see know that it is not grammatically correct german, but hey, what can you expect from the press of a germanophobic WWI America where you were required to kiss the flag in the town square if you were caught speaking german? :confused: The American story is that the germans described the attacking Marines as the "hounds of hell" during the Battle of Belleau Wood in World War ONE.

Totenkopf it is. My attempt at the "oe" representation of an umlaut "o" seems to have been misplaced.

Now that reminds me of another german word that is part of modern Marine vocabulary: Kopfjager. It is used by the Marine Sniper community and can be found posted at Marine Sniper School. My Sergeant called me "Kopfjager" after I put a .223 M-16 round right between the eyes of a head and torso target from the 500 yard line with iron sights in the prone position. :cool: I assume it also comes from World War One when Marines fought germans. Hey, that gives me an idea for another pun: Teutonkopfjager.

v/r,

Teutonkopfjager

Fuhrer Teutonicus der "Teutonhunden"