Purchaseable EW formations.

[Stagler]

Suggestion:

How about introducing purchasable EW units (EW platoon?) purchasable as part of a combined arms battalion or BTG for both sides, with high rarity and high cost.

That way it is possible to leverage EW upon your opponent without having to agree before the game on set levels (who would really take a voluntary nerf?), and as a way to surprise your opponent who decided to invest heavily in drones or air support. Ensuring high price and rarity keeps this from being spammed or gimmicky, as investing heavily in pricey EW would hamper the size of your force.

Thoughts?

[DougPhresh]

Would EW assets being in the part of the battlespace modeled in CM titles? They seem like high-level assets that wouldn't be in a company-battalion frontage.

[womble]

I think Stagler's suggesting them as "off map", "largely abstracted" elements that would simply and purely have the effect of changing the EW environment for the cost of some/many QB points, rather than assets which could be targeted on the playing field.

[Codename Duchess]

How do you balance the cost of a Russian EW platoon vs. an EC-130? It seems odd for an EC-130 to support a company/BN specifically.  Most likely it would be doing broad work in a manner similar to the current way. 

I like it in theory, but I could see it causing tension in some games. Also would many people genuinely sacrifice say a jets point value worth of units for this? 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Codename Duchess

[Stagler]

I think Stagler's suggesting them as "off map", "largely abstracted" elements that would simply and purely have the effect of changing the EW environment for the cost of some/many QB points, rather than assets which could be targeted on the playing field.

 

Thats exactly what I had in mind.

I dont know US EW assets very well, but this being 2017 I assume they have a deployable platoon size EW unit that supports ground operations.

Many people would if playing as Ukraine vs Russia, or Russia vs the US, it would balance out for example fact that you cant hit the Grey Hawk or Zala, by having them hampered by deployment times and reporting accuracy by EW - which in turn effects the high technology precision strike capability of both of those factions.

For a relatively heavy investment in deployment points, it would be worth it if your pitted against an opponent with multple offmap UAV/CAS/Artillery platforms using precision strike. Lets say about 4000 deployment and 2000 rarity points buys you one EW Plt, which is the equivalent of giving your enemy "Light" EW jamming as per the QB set up. Thats the equivalent of 2 strike aircraft, or 4/6 batteries of artillery. You could choose to buy 2 EW Plts if you wished but youd be spending a fair chunk of your points cost and rarity on off-map supporting assets - bringing balance.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Stagler

[BTR]

This could be a more unpredictable way of handling things, but other than that I don't see what it would change. 

[Stagler]

That's the point, choice and unpredictability - the key facets of quick battles. Choice is good.

[Sublime]

I actually dont see why not. Itd be good as stagler said now someone has to agree to a nerf or both sides do.  This would also add to the unpredictability of battle and cause on the fly changes in tactics. I dont know how easy itd be to implement but as a purely off map way to spend points to get a modifier i think it.d be a good idea

[sburke]

as an off map modifier you are more likely to get success.  As an on board option, they would first have to create the capability.  Right now EW is just a setting, there is no in game unit functionality.  Simpler is better when asking for stuff.

[Stagler]

My idea only ever encompassed off map formations, bought like artillery.

 

Stick in a unit HQ with a UAZ/HMMWV if must - but the majority of the formation has to be off map.