Jump to content

Garrisons and A-bomb


Recommended Posts

Hey Dave,

I think you've made your point here and let's try and remember that not everyone will necessarily agree. In the end this is still a game for many players who might want this type of option and in fairness, we did include the simulation of the A-Bomb in the Pacific Theater release so it is not entirely without foundation.

Hubert

True that, and so, I shall most-immediately cease and desist wit' it.

At least, I didn't go out and find and post-up some truly gruesome PICS. There's that anyhow.

Living where I do, I have seen up-close & personal, much of my life... Los Alamos and Trinity Site, and this has developed over the years into... genuinely, one of my "pet peeves."

And yer right, of course, that others see it differently. If they like this feature and X-press THEIR POV, well then, up to now I have merely been X-pressing... mine.

However -> no longer, no more, kaput, and finis, and presto ipso calypso!

I am done with it.

My larger point, made soon-after-following the other stuff, was that ANYONE can make ANY sort of "unit/counter" for their own Mod, as I and many others have done.

It's notso awful arduous.

And, IF it proves so, then they can get plenty of ol' fashioned "know-how" from all kinds of SC Imagine-That! Cats over to that there -> Mods place, eh? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

" ...their stats could hypothetically be of any value and it still wouldn't change their inability to attack."

Then I suggest a divisional unit. Since Special Forces already exist, they can cover elite divisions like the German SS or US marine. That leaves us with ordinary divisions.

Since we’re crippled somewhat then it comes to what values we can give this new unit, it will not be to exact. If a corps had a SA of 10 instead of 1 it would be different. That means the unit will be something ranging from a garrison unit thru volkssturm/home defense to a regular division.

With that in mind my suggestion is as follows:

TT=Soft, ST=1, SL=2, SN=1, AP=2, SR=1, OR=-, SA=1*, TA=0, AA+BA=3**, NA+CA+UA=2***

RA=-, SD+TD+AD+BD+CD=0****, ND=0, UD=-, RM=-

*) If Corps is changed to 2 it would make sense. This will also make it possible to have a 1:2 ratio instead of a 1:3 ratio and therefore keep the increase of the overall number of units limited. Let’s say that out of 20 corps you remove 10 and add 20 divisions. That means SA 20*2=40 changed to 10*2+20*1=40. The total SA value will be the same.

**) I would prefer 2, but they can’t be weaker than partisans. Maybe partisans should be 2? It you choose 3, I think corps should be 5.

***) I would prefer 1, but they can’t be weaker than partisans. Maybe partisans should be 1?

****) If we want to profile it as a defense unit it should have 1 and - again - should it be weaker than a partisan unit?

I thought I could give a more clear answer, but after going thru the online GC manual page 157-159 this was the best I could provide. I hope it could be of any help or at least something to discuss around. /Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Dave,

I think you've made your point here and let's try and remember that not everyone will necessarily agree. In the end this is still a game for many players who might want this type of option and in fairness, we did include the simulation of the A-Bomb in the Pacific Theater release so it is not entirely without foundation.

Hubert

Thanks for those words Hubert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey -> Hausser!

I've ALREADY said I warn't gonna X-claim on it ennymore.

That not good enuff fer ya, you gots to rub it in?

That yer bad-lad modus operandi or what?

LOL!

Here's some precise & particular words for du:

We DON'T need a unit-slot taken up by ANY Garrison type unit.

MUCH rather see that rare slot used for:

1) Naval Bomber

2) Mechanized.

JMO, you know?

Link to post
Share on other sites
" ...their stats could hypothetically be of any value and it still wouldn't change their inability to attack."

Then I suggest a divisional unit. Since Special Forces already exist, they can cover elite divisions like the German SS or US marine. That leaves us with ordinary divisions.

Since we’re crippled somewhat then it comes to what values we can give this new unit, it will not be to exact. If a corps had a SA of 10 instead of 1 it would be different. That means the unit will be something ranging from a garrison unit thru volkssturm/home defense to a regular division.

With that in mind my suggestion is as follows:

TT=Soft, ST=1, SL=2, SN=1, AP=2, SR=1, OR=-, SA=1*, TA=0, AA+BA=3**, NA+CA+UA=2***

RA=-, SD+TD+AD+BD+CD=0****, ND=0, UD=-, RM=-

*) If Corps is changed to 2 it would make sense. This will also make it possible to have a 1:2 ratio instead of a 1:3 ratio and therefore keep the increase of the overall number of units limited. Let’s say that out of 20 corps you remove 10 and add 20 divisions. That means SA 20*2=40 changed to 10*2+20*1=40. The total SA value will be the same.

**) I would prefer 2, but they can’t be weaker than partisans. Maybe partisans should be 2? It you choose 3, I think corps should be 5.

***) I would prefer 1, but they can’t be weaker than partisans. Maybe partisans should be 1?

****) If we want to profile it as a defense unit it should have 1 and - again - should it be weaker than a partisan unit?

I thought I could give a more clear answer, but after going thru the online GC manual page 157-159 this was the best I could provide. I hope it could be of any help or at least something to discuss around. /Paul

Thanks for the feedback again and just looking at the suggested stats, and here mostly just at the values for SA/SD and TA/TD as well as the general AD/BD values (the other values rarely come into play for a unit of this type game wise) it really is not going to be much different than a Corps when it comes to the combat calculations, i.e. 0-1 in values unfortunately don't make much difference with the attacker/defender losses, especially when you start adding in research upgrades as we already have players that opt to simply build super Corps rather than Armies once the applicable research levels are maxed out.

Again, this is just my gut reaction here but after thinking some more once you start to create too many similar units where the gaps can be bridged via research upgrades then all it really comes down to is simply having that extra unit on the map to cover areas you are not able to cover with the current build limits and in that case we are sort of back to square one when it comes to original issue of are there not enough units on the map?

For example, with an upgraded division it will be as strong as a Corps and it can then be used in replacement of an actual Corps to provide a strong defence in critical position such as a city or fortification etc. Costs have to be examined as well because if you make Divisions too cheap then you can basically have super Corps (when upgraded) at a savings, but make them too expensive and then they don't become worth it for purchase.

With your suggested stats above, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on upgrades as well as the suggested cost of the unit relative to other units.

I think you mentioned you had Weapons and Warfare, correct? If so you can easily crack open the Editor and experiment with let's say the Special Forces unit and create a hypothetical Division unit for testing purposes. It can probably give you a much better idea on how combat will look as well as what might be the appropriate costs etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there should be a g-unit it should be at SD-1, TD-0. SA-0, TA-0 and most imporatant ...have a max value of 5. This is if all other units keep their present stats and the scale of the scenario is still Grand Strategy. Ultimatly there should be a froce pool that will have the player to make hard choices...should I build 2 g-units or should I build 1 corps or even should I build 2 Armies or 1 Panzer. All units should have build value and a nation would have a maximum of build value points to spend. This maximum could increase somewhat after making conquests but not a lot since the manpower base will still be dependent on it's own population and only marginallly increased by volutaires from conquered nations. then we can add oil and other vital resources but then things might get too complicated... we want the game to be fun without too much micro management.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been skimming through this thread trying to take in the gist of what's being said but I wasn't really interested because I have pretty much the same feelings as DD, or as the military analyst (played by Walter Mathau) put it in the movie, Fail Safe when discussing WWII, "We won't discuss Hiroshima or Nakasaki because they're more properly a part of World War Three."

I doubt WWII bombs, even a lot of them going off in a fairly short period of time, could have triggered even a localized nuclear winter. As strategic weapons they weren't as damaging as the thousand bomber raids that hit Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo and other cities. I think their main value would have been psychological. And also, something people knew little of at the time, radiation damage.

There was something like a ten year age of the A-bomb period, in the middle of which a booster effect was developed that made them much more deadly, but still nowhere near as horrific as an H-bomb.

Then the mid-50s and the hydrogen bomb comes along and dwarfs atomic bombs, makes the largest of them seem almost tactical compared to their so much larger evil descendent.

Anyway, Bill Macon is the expert on these things, so I'd defer to anything he has to add here.

We have to make allowance for one or more of the powers developing an atomic bomb, and in order to do anything with it they would also need a sophisticated delivery system. To see V-2s in that role isn't historically realistic, but here to I think it has to be accepted as an option. I think nuclear weapons first began going on rockets in the early or mid-50s, but I may be wrong.

-- I think we'd need to assume that delivered on anything less than a B-29 there would be a good chance of the weapon going off in flight. I remember reading that was one of the reasons B-17s were ruled out; they weren't considered a stable enough platform for in flight arming. But, as always, I may be wrong on this and would defer to the opinions of those with greater knowledge of this than I happen to have.

We have to also consider that in the 1940s it took a long time to process the materials for an atomic bomb, so making them would be a long and costly process. I think the U. S. was making two or three a year during the forties, but I may be wrong. Lesser powers would be able to churn out what, one every year and a half to two years?

I don't think these would be war winners unless the country being targetted is in the shape Japan was in the summer of 1945.

-- And, regarding Japan, as has been pointed out by several historians, there were many ways the U. S. could have made the civilian death toll many times higher. The cruelest would have been to have just destroyed the Home Island transportation network, including mountain bridges. The result would have been the starvation of millions.

Anyway, all of those super weapons are necessary evils that have to be put in the game if it's going to be historically realistic.

But we also need to keep in mind that a WWIII game would probably not be very interesting. At least not after the first move or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the idea with the atom bombs.If a country is close to surrender then the''bomb''or two being dropped would just be enough to put them over the edge.If the Atomic bomb is dropped on a city then that cities usefullness is removed from the game for atleast a year.If you factor in overall destruction the bomb causes does that make sense?You could use it to wipeout an important city as far as a rail centre etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it makes sense.

I'm wondering if those weapons are a sensible use of resources. The Manhattan Project, along with the huge cost of designing the B-29, which is rarely mentioned, were both very heavy burdens for the U. S. economy. I was glad when the book and movie, Flag of Our Fathers brought out something almost never popularly discussed before, that the United States, by the end of 1944, was going broke. Great Britain had already gone broke even before that.

Did the United States really need the atomic bomb to finish off the Axis?

Or did we really start it out of fear that Germany, and perhaps Japan, might have been developing their own nuclear weapons. And then, after finding out they didn't have them, did we go on with the rest of this economically ruinous r & d (ruinous considering we already had full blown wars going in both the Atlantic and Pacific!) because we thought it would be a good way of blocking post war Russia?

As a weapon A-bombs are great, if hideous, weapons. There's no doubt about that part.

We can only imagine if the war would have continued if Germany had developed one in mid-war, say 1943, actually built a few, with some sort of reliable delivery system, and dropped one in the middle of London. On the eastern front I think a better military use would have to drop them on specific Soviet Armies rather than urban or transportation centers.

-- Bringing me back to the earlier point. I think the United States feared Germany would have such a weapon ready by 1943 or 44. Once we started on our own project its momentum took over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I am in the camp of both JJ and DD.

I don't really see the need for having A-bombs in the game. They arrived very late in the war, and were extremely expensive to develop and eventually produce. Nor do I see the "appeal" in it either. :eek:

However, if the majority of people want it in the game (say, in an expansion), I suggest making it so realistically expensive that it would discourage most from even pursuing it (that would certainly be historically realistic anyway).

So, if one REALLY wants it bad enough, great, but they'll have to sacrifice alot just to get it into the game. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice analysis all around JJ.

Now, here's what I think... OOOOOOOOOOpps!

OK, I have the gag on now, it's jake for the desert jamoke.

What's 'at Alphonse? Oh. Here's how I do it:

I have a small brass gong next to my typer, and WHENEVER I notice LOTS of OTHER people talking about this subject of "X-xxxx's," I start to IMAGINE that it's OK for me to do so as well, but, of course, it's not, so...

I use this little tiny Thor-like hammer and I... bang the gong!!!!

My wife comes rushing and helps me... put the gag back on.

Then, in a little while, then I am over that terrible impulse, well, you bet, we take it on off.

I must tell you, however, she is a'gittin' awful doggone wearied of this here run back & forth sort of routine! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Snowstorm and DD. I agree with Snowstorm's idea of making it a very expensive luxury item for country's with too much change and resources.* :confused:

DD -- Did you say, desert jamoke? :eek: No, say it ain't so, Joe, I mean, Dave. That can't be. For almost a decade now I've been living my life according to the teachings of DesertDave, and before that, his twin brother ImmerEtwas. And there's no jamoke in there, anywhere! :cool::)

Which isn't to say I don't like the idea of a brass gong. Planning to pick one up myself pretty soon. :D

*The irony is I think it's pretty much a fact that those terrible weapons kept the most terrible war in history, far worse than WWII, from happening during the decades after 1945. One shudders to imagine what such a war, even without a nuclear arsenal, would have been like in say, 1955.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to even mention, those Thor-gong reverberations are making ack!

Ramshackles out of all them delicate wind-chimes I got hanging on my porch. Makes a soothing night-time sound to go to sleep by, don't you'all think?

Anyhow, that old-deep gong-noise causes my Cat -- "Flash" -- to screech and climb the walls.

Worse, the cat -- Flash, thinks... I am a wall.

Oh, woe.

Got Band-aids?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Say away JJ!

Oh sure, say the day away, I got time to listen, at the least.

Nuthin' quite like that knowing frou-frou sashay, I say, nor, shall there EVER be again.

Gots something to do with... you and Burt Lancaster standing by the boardwalk there at Atlantic City and sayin' to each the other:

"Whoa! Isn't that Atlantic Ocean... something!

They aint' got one like it nowhere, not even over in retro-Europe!"

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of band aids now, bought a bunch in the big Wallgreen (there are those walls again! :eek: ) assorted sizes box. Needed one desperately before buying them a few months back, haven't needed one since I bought the box. There's a moral there. Also, I've been a lot more careful with those serated meat knives.

There's a distant memory of being very small, in that sort of half crawling-half walking stage (okay, yes, it was last week! :rolleyes: ) of seeing light on the wall during a bright summer day, it having gone through Venetian blinds the thing looked a lot like a ladder. And the frustration of putting a foot on what should have been the bottom rung, and not being able to climb it. :D

-- (added later)

Love that image of Burt Lancaster in Great Atlantic City, which is a terrific place if you don't move too far from the ocean. Of course, as soon as Lancaster entered a scene it went up a few notches. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Wife really discourages me eating while im playing.We have already had to replace one keyboard because I spilt cottage cheese all over it.Before that I had spilt some orange juice and a bit of yogart on it.She was amazed it even functioned.Didnt hardly smell at all.

If the A-BOMB is in the game(which I think it should)then yes it has to be expensive and it also can only be built if the country in question has access to the resorces needed to build it.The tech.advance for it would refer more to the scientists learing how to build it and designing a delivery system.They would already know what they need.Aquiring what they need would be up to the countrys military to conquer the appropriate countries.It would also make the other side wonder what you are up to if you are conquering all the counrtries needed to make the Atom bomb.Could be fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Very nice analysis all around JJ.

Now, here's what I think... OOOOOOOOOOpps!

OK, I have the gag on now, it's jake for the desert jamoke.

What's 'at Alphonse? Oh. Here's how I do it:

I have a small brass gong next to my typer, and WHENEVER I notice LOTS of OTHER people talking about this subject of "X-xxxx's," I start to IMAGINE that it's OK for me to do so as well, but, of course, it's not, so...

Just to clarify I have no issue with the discussion or your contributions to the discussion idea itself, but if I find a poster is becoming openly hostile, disrespectful to other opinions or generally belligerent I will unfortunately have to step in and ask them to step back.

This is the same for everybody and if you can add to the discussion without attacking the messenger, i.e. rather the idea, please feel free to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hubert

What is your opinion then it comes to the partisan unit in relation to a divisional unit?

Rannug

Your suggestion is great for a pure garrison unit. Also, a partisan unit can be stronger then a garrison but not a division. But don’t you think a divisional would be more versatile?

Partisan units I think serve the purpose they are mean to reflect in game well enough, i.e. they can be a nuisance and their stats reflect that with respect to the other units in the game.

When you start hypothetically comparing it, or other units, to a new unit type like a division then some of the existing stats may no longer make sense but that is of course only if you add the new unit type. Otherwise as it stands I would argue the existing relationship between units such as an HQ, Corps, Partisans and so on is not broken and for the most part makes sense, whereas it might be once you try and squeeze another unit in there.

That alone would be reason enough for me (from a design point of view) to avoid a new unit type unless it was absolutely necessary because it is a real pain to retest (and reset combat values for something that has been fine tuned over 9 years) only to find out it may or may not work in the end.

In that vein, and just being perfectly honest based on the discussion so far, I'd have to say that I'm really not sold on the idea of adding in a divisional size unit for this game, especially for the scale we are using for Global. To me having a unit marginally less effective than a Corps does not make the game more attractive considering that the Corps is already pretty weak relative to the stronger units such as Armies and Tanks. I see the Corps already fulfilling the role you would be after with the divisional sized unit but granted perhaps that is just me. I think if we were talking about a much bigger map then there might be more merit but I think once you get a closer look at the scale of the Global map you might even agree. I'd actually be interested to hear your opinion again on this when we reach that point.

That being said it does brings me back to the original suggestion which was simply to have a Garrison unit to protect open cities from enemy units from simply grabbing them.

If we were to introduce a real basic unit as Rannug suggests which would literally have no attack and defense to speak of and basically would only be there to prevent enemy units from walking into an open city I can see this as being a better fit. Problem I see is that if the Garrison unit is too strong then it is not much different from a Corps (which brings me back to my original point), but if it is too weak then we can almost argue "what is the point" sort of thing.

I would envision something along the lines of what xwormwood suggests where we can opt for a Garrison upgrade for a resource and the benefit of this would be to prevent actual Garrison units running all over the map, i.e. they would be stationary for that resource only and the end result would be that you no longer have your open cities but you still have to spend some MPP to Garrison the desired resources. Otherwise you can always simply place a regular unit in its place much like what we already have. The role of the Garrison unit would be to pretty much block the taking of an open resource but a single attack would knock it out, i.e. a resource can be taken in two turns by a single enemy unit (if the resource is not subsequently re-defended) or by two units in a single turn where the first unit knocks out the Garrison and the second unit moves in. This would also resolve the issue of having to use regular units for Garrison duties but the number of Corps would still likely have to be reduced to compensate for the difference new Garrison units now represent.

Again such a weak Garrison may not be desirable either and in this case it could be an actual unit such as Rannug suggests with a max reinforcement of 5 and identical stats to an HQ. This may prevent a low supply unit from taking out let's say a Garrison on a two tile island where they would still have to land in force but can expect an easier go than if the the island were actually held by a full fledged unit.

Cost would still have to be worked out and how to deal with swapping out a Garrison unit with a regular map unit might also be an issue if we are not allowing movable Garrison units. Would you have to disband the Garrison first? Would moving in simply remove the existing Garrison or would it always be there and if so are we talking about some sort of stacking etc.?

This would all have to be considered as well.

Hubert

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hubert,

Maybe it should be like a HQ with the following exceptions:

ST+SR=1, AA+BA=1 or 2, NA+CA+UA=1, SD+AD+BD+CD=1 and cost=60MMP

If it's considered to be a garnison/fort unit it should maybe have better air and navy values (+1) and cost 75 MMPs.

The stats and cost would still have to depend on whether this unit would be upgradable like a Corps would be. For example, even if you had the Soft and Tank attack values at 0 and all the defense values at 0 and applied two level-2 upgrades, i.e. one for Anti-Tank and Infantry Weapons, you now have SA/TA=2 and SD/TD=2 which is better than a Level-0 Corps at a cheaper price then a Level-0 Corps.

For example a Corps is 100MPP and even if you use the higher cost of 75 for a Division it would still come out to under the 100MPP, i.e. 75 + 15 + 7.5 = 97.5 for a unit better than a default Corps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Up late because my basketball team -- my alma mater -- won a big game tonight against the 10th ranked team in the nation.

Therefore, I am happy. No! Over-joyed! :)

As for the rest, I can only say that I personally don't believe I have dis-respected anyone.

But IF ANYONE -- THAT very person who feels they've been dissed, and not someone else -- feels I have done that, well, they can tell me so. Stand up, straight up -- to me... Man to Man.

IF I am in the wrong -- and it does happen now & again, you bet! Then I will admit it. Why not? I ain't no Saint.

Even, apologize, if need be.

Beyond that, well, like Popeye the Sailor Man would say it... "I yam what I yam."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...