When deciding to build naval units, the port of construction must also be named, If the port falls the ship would either be scuttled or fall into enemy hands and thus come out of the build que??? comments
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
sarge11 said:
It's a good idea on paper, but it's mechanically not even possible based on the things we know. In HOI2, you didn't build a ship in a specific port, which is why it could only be stolen after it had been deployed. Second, if your ports are being snatched up, why are you building a Navy?
I like it. It would add some additional strategic layers to the game if you had shipbuilding facilities that you had to protect (or could attack). I'd also say that attacks on the ports in question could have the potential to delay, or possibly destroy, ships in progress.
realism
ships were built in specific ports, If whatever country I am playing no longer has any port facilities I shouldnt be receiving messages that my new sub,destroyer etc is fininshed now deploy it. then I retake a port hex and am able to deploy a new ship?Chicken said:
Well
if realism doesnt suit you does it make for fair gameplay for germany to start launching the tirpitz and other capital ship in athens. The Med was closed to german warship other than a few Uboats and coastal ships they had captured?Romantic said:
sarge11 said:
What I mean is, hardcoding such trivial things as capturing enemy ships in port just leads to MORE gamey play. I can just amphibious assault with 1 div and capture all their ships in Wilhelmshaven. I lost a Div, sure, but cool I captured all of GER's half built ships.
Nothing else can be destroyed by taking land, you cant have inf fall out of the build que if someone captures Berlin.
You need to personally restrict yourself.
If you think GER building 10 carriers at once is gamey... don't do it, eh? Build 4 at a time or whatever you feel like.
I like the idea, and you could even take it further and have the size of the port help determine the speed of contstruction. Makes building up multiple large ports actually worthwhile.
Romantic said:
Why is that gamey? The Allies bombed Germany's ship production to try and slow it down. Don't you think if the German's would have left a major port where have their ship building was going on so unprotected that one division could capture it that the Allies wouldn't have jumped at the chance?
Having something like this would give the German player reason to actually protect a major port, as they would have in real life. That adds to the strategy of combat operations. The German player has to decide where he wants to build his U-Boats. Then they have to decide how to protect that production. The UK player has the incentive to use intelligence and reconassiance to determine where that production is taking place. And destruction or distruption of that production is another strategic avenue they can explore if they wish.
Currently the only options the UK or US player has is a) use STRAT bombers to reduce Germany's overall production or b) don't us STRAT bombers to reduce Germany's overall production. Hardly interesting or realistic gameplay, IMO.
You could also take this one step further and apply it to land units. You have to deploy land units in specified "training camps" that you either had, or could build more. I always thought it a bit "gamey" and rather silly, that I could be assaulting through Russia, and suddenly there would be this massive force behind me as long as they had a land connection there. Really wouldn't happen like that.
You really want that much realism?
May of the components were not even built at the naval shipyard, they were shipped there to be assembled. So it also depends at what stage the port was captured. Theoretically the country doing the building would be able to retain some of the production value depending at what stage the port was captured. Personally I don't see this as an important issue that the designers should focus their efforts.
May of the components were not even built at the naval shipyard, they were shipped there to be assembled. So it also depends at what stage the port was captured. Theoretically the country doing the building would be able to retain some of the production value depending at what stage the port was captured. Personally I don't see this as an important issue that the designers should focus their efforts.
ecnan02 said:
If an invasion force was headed towards an army training camp the people aren't going to stand around an be overrun. They grab their gear and get the hell outta dodge.
ecnan02 said:
As units are deployed with zero org., I do not see any problem and any reason to add any new complexity.
I agree, that should delay their training. You could even keep it abstract and build them in "the air" like they do now, but they HAVE to come out at a "training camp". It just strikes me as odd that you would get newly formed divisions appearing at the front. This is different than rushing units to the front straight from training. For instance, fighting in the Ukraine. I've taken moscow and there is a one province connection to a small pocket in the Ukraine. The SU gets a build done, and suddenly there are 20+ divisions in this forward area. Just doesn't seem realistic to me.
You can consider part of the build time, the assembly time to the location that it is deployed.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
true, but then I still have that annoying problem. Why won't the AI just admit defeat and DIE!!!!!!!!! Just when you think a pocket is reduced......Toddd240 said:
new units start with zero org so if you continue to press the attack they don't amount for much.
Toddd240 said:
No, it's not a good use of the designers resources, and I'm sure something like this would never happen. But yes, I would want that much realism. The more the better. Improving the AI, making combat more realistic, and moving the rest of the game towards a Victoria level of complexity would be the ideal IMO.
I know, I just hate slaughtering helpless peasants. Seriously sometimes playing against the SU, I get reminded of the opening part of Enemy at the Gates.Toddd240 said:
mwiggins said:
There are a lot of things I would love to see in the game, but I am trying to be realistic on what could happen and focusing on that. The game is certainly going to be more complex, don't fear for that.