Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Limit on transport ships as a Rule

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Dan_

Dan_

Sergeant
5 Badges
Oct 24, 2004
97
0
  • Darkest Hour
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
to improve gameplay realism i d suggest a limit on the number of transport ships any nation is allowed to own. E.g. 12 ships. having the ability to land 12 divisions (~150 000 troops) seems to be enough in my view, such a rule would avoid having gamey unrealistic moves in a game when e.g. the usa lands 100 div (~1500000 troops on one prov in a single day)

Any opinions on this matter?
 
this is pretty interesting and I agree but I don't think that many players will share our point of view :rolleyes:
 
all I can say is, attack USA with the japanese with 12 transports ;)
 
I agree, I think the limit should be 24 or 16, unlimited is too gamey. If I were creating my own ruleset it would state 24. BUt, like Hiensen said, not very many people agree with this, I would say to those folks to study the difficulties of planning the actual D-Day and the casualties involved. :)
 
Wellsey said:
I agree, I think the limit should be 24 or 16, unlimited is too gamey. If I were creating my own ruleset it would state 24. BUt, like Hiensen said, not very many people agree with this, I would say to those folks to study the difficulties of planning the actual D-Day and the casualties involved. :)
Click to expand...
the problem is more in the ability to hold locations, what if you land 12 divisisions, and the enemy quickly converges 20 divs around you like on Japanese main islands, then it would be impossible to finally get ashore.
 
not to mention, that all that realism shit is pointless. This game cant be realistic, otherwise woulbe unbalanced. U want realism, then u go watch ww2 documentarys :)
 
I agree, I think the limit should be 24 or 16, unlimited is too gamey. If I were creating my own ruleset it would state 24. BUt, like Hiensen said, not very many people agree with this, I would say to those folks to study the difficulties of planning the actual D-Day and the casualties involved.
Click to expand...

ok now look at it like this.....I as germany abandon every other province and leave divisions in the ones between the abandoned ones. Enough divs in each provs to destroy 12 divisions in about 6 hours maybe less. it's like a day trip to get back to england and back to germany and that is if you want to chance your divisions losing the battle and not able to retreat.

would look like this....

hour 1: 9 divs | blank prov | 9 divs

hour 2: 9 divs -> 12-16 UK divs <- 9 divs

hour 6: 9 divs | blank prov | 9 divs

I think they did a well enough job on limiting the attack power of amphib assaults....the only nation who can attack with more than 3 until very late in the game is Japan and USA. Germany should defend their shores better and use more airpower vs SU, instead of trying to match them division for division. and use quality over quantity.
 
You could just double the cost.

The most interesting idea I heard about transports, was to create a second variety of transports which had movement factor 0. These would be the cheaper variety of transports which could only be used for rebasing missions: in other words UK moving its units from UK to Durban, and then Durban to India, for example. Then there would be the more expensive landing craft that would be capable of short runs, and landing troops on beechheads.

The problem would be that the 0 movement factor TP's would could get caught out in mid-atlantic, for example, and simply have no way to retreat. Distaster would ensue, if the TP's met a sizable force, but that is not so unrealistic, IMO.

Making an artificial limit on TP's would really kill the UK, since there would be no way it could effectively move units from theater to theater.
 
Cueball said:
You could just double the cost.

The most interesting idea I heard about transports, was to create a second variety of transports which had movement factor 0. These would be the cheaper variety of transports which could only be used for rebasing missions: in other words UK moving its units from UK to Durban, and then Durban to India, for example. Then there would be the more expensive landing craft that would be capable of short runs, and landing troops on beechheads.

The problem would be that the 0 movement factor TP's would could get caught out in mid-atlantic, for example, and simply have no way to retreat. Distaster would ensue, if the TP's met a sizable force, but that is not so unrealistic, IMO.

Making an artificial limit on TP's would really kill the UK, since there would be no way it could effectively move units from theater to theater.
Click to expand...
I like that idea, but what about this

TP's with range of 400km that are specifically for amphibious, where you get no amphibious penalty for landing if you use marines.

This way it gives a realistic chance to win battles vs fortified enemies.

Max it at 3 marines before you start getting penalties, and the other type of Transport, can land but with a major penalty (Otherwise Japan and USA would be out of range of each other) unless you make range doctrine specific
 
you and your useless modifications :) game is fine as it is, if u want to win, learn to play :)
 
Colonel_General said:
you and your useless modifications :) game is fine as it is, if u want to win, learn to play :)
Click to expand...

Of course you won't get to win much since you are plainly nothing more than a simple braggart who makes up for his total lack of social skills with small minded nastiness, and as such will find that no one is interested in playing games, realistic or otherwise, with someone whose primary interest seems to be providing a platform for his arrogance, and you will have to content yourself with musing on your acumen, your strategic perspicacity and fantasy victories, in lieu of any real contests. :)

Sadly, musing repeatedly on this topic to your self will not make it true. Sorry. :D

However it is true that the extremely stupid are always quite taken with the brilliance of their conception, largely because it took such an effort to devise. Extreme effort of thought always has the shadow of the appearance of genius, especially when viewed from the point of view of its source, but unfortunately extreme expenditure of mental energy is not the sole quantifier by which intelligence can be judged.
 
Last edited:
i dont think it s very realistic for the UK to have e.g. 50 transports and move some 750 000 troops to a theatre in just a few days or even land that amount of troops in a single drop
 
Dan_ said:
i dont think it s very realistic for the UK to have e.g. 50 transports and move some 750 000 troops to a theatre in just a few days or even land that amount of troops in a single drop
Click to expand...
its also not realistic for Germany to have = IC to the USA
 
The game is not about "realism." No one thinks it is. It is a grand strategy simulation, within that simulations there is a specific logic of design that determines how the game simulates.

If the simple defence of any aspect of the game that does not fit within the logic of the simulation is that the game overall is not "realistic" anyway, then you have missed the point that the game is intended to simulate the grand strategy military dynamics of the second world war.

If you do not accept the paramaters and logic of the simulation, because it is "unrealistic", then what is the point of playing a second world war grand strategy game anyway? You might just as well figure out a way to make graphical changes to Warcraft III, and make Wyverns P-38's, and Orc Grunts little soldiers with guns, and say it's a "war game".
 
Last edited:
its also not realistic for Germany to have = IC to the USA
Click to expand...

or for Germany to have 0 divisions bordering SU during france and pre-russian wars. or to basically abandon france and march on gibraltor. to abandon italian mainlands and all territories taken over by the axis to stack divisions on russian front. to use entire allied or puppet armies for defense and offense. to use your entire airforce in one location and let other theatres go unattended. to abandon norway after annexation. to puppet china and not build a single japanese infantry division. to have any allied or puppet country completely supply armies, planes, and navies for more than a week. to blah. to blah. to blah. any questions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back