Assault

[Straha]

Forgive me if this was already asked ... at least I don´t recall it.

Will there be an "assault" option like in COS, i.e. a combined attack of several units which haven´t yet moved? If not, will the adjacency of other units have any effect on the efficiency of an attack or defense? (e.g. like in the games from the Five Star series.)

Straha

[ April 25, 2002, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Straha ]

[SuperTed]

Straha,

I believe both answers are "no." Sorry.

[Straha]

IMO it is vital that units are not treated as monadic entities. E.g. a unit merged into a continuous frontline should really be stronger than a unit squatting around on its own. The same goes for attacks. The sum is more than its parts. A concentrated simultaneous attack by many forces should be stronger than single units attacking one after another ....

Straha

[Mr. Clark]

What about stacking?

Can you stack units and then get a simultaneous attack?

Is there any way to get a simultaneous attack?

Once again, we have not even played the DEMO yet, so it may not matter... but I'm still curious.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Straha:

IMO it is vital that units are not treated as monadic entities. E.g. a unit merged into a continuous frontline should really be stronger than a unit squatting around on its own. The same goes for attacks. The sum is more than its parts. A concentrated simultaneous attack by many forces should be stronger than single units attacking one after another ....

Straha

Straha,

I agree, but I'll leave the detailed answer to Hubert.

[ April 25, 2002, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: SuperTed ]

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

What about stacking?

Can you stack units and then get a simultaneous attack?

Is there any way to get a simultaneous attack?

Once again, we have not even played the DEMO yet, so it may not matter... but I'm still curious.

Mr. C,

There can only be one unit per hex. Also, there is no way to get a simultaneous attack. Sorry to be the bearer of the bad news.

[BloodyBucket]

So, let me understand this. If I have four units, each ten strength, surrounding a ten strength unit, assuming the defending unit "lucks out" and takes no losses during this sequence of events, I get four one-to-one attacks, instead of one four-to-one attack?

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

So, let me understand this. If I have four units, each ten strength, surrounding a ten strength unit, assuming the defending unit "lucks out" and takes no losses during this sequence of events, I get four one-to-one attacks, instead of one four-to-one attack?

BB,

Yes, but assumming the above situation involves the surrounded unit being out of supply, its readiness will be reduced. As a result, it will be less effective and suffer increasing casualties in each attack, while inflicting fewer itself.

I am assuming the results would be similar to those that could be found in a 4:1 attack. By the time the fourth unit is attacking, the risk of losses is very small. Further, if the first three attacks go well, the fourth one may not even be needed, leaving it free to roam the countryside.

In a nutshell, it is a simplification. But it works very nicely.

[BloodyBucket]

Well, I am open minded enough to see how this works in the demo, but it makes my old SPI, get three-to-one odds, attack, surround and destroy head hurt!

I'm sure the system will work out just fine, but when I see hexagons, I think in board wargame terms.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

Yes, but assumming the above situation involves the surrounded unit being out of supply, its readiness will be reduced. As a result, it will be less effective and suffer increasing casualties in each attack, while inflicting fewer itself.

Are you really saying that an enemy unit in supply WON'T have it's readiness reduced in successive attacks?

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuperTed:

Yes, but assumming the above situation involves the surrounded unit being out of supply, its readiness will be reduced. As a result, it will be less effective and suffer increasing casualties in each attack, while inflicting fewer itself.

Are you really saying that an enemy unit in supply WON'T have it's readiness reduced in successive attacks?</font>

[vonManstein39]

No assault or stacking sounds like a serious drawback to me.

What about heavily fortified cities like Leningrad and Gibraltar when they have strong units defending them? Without some kind of combined attack, taking these places is going to be damn near impossible.

It's not historically accurate either as combined assaults were a vital part of WWII combat tactics. Without this feature, the defender can bring their full combat strength to bear against each attacking unit in turn, instead of having to defend against all possible attack directions simultaneously.

[Canuck_para]

One thing about the no stacking rule that bugged me about COS was the unprotected air force that would be completely destroyed by a unit that made it through the line.

I don't know how realistic this is. Were there any cases of huge amounts of aircraft being destroyed on the ground by land forces?

I would prefer for the air force to be forced to rebase and lose it's turn as well as some efficiancy.

[Mr. Clark]

I think this system (which I admit sounds a bit awkward) may work out fine. SuperTed has already said that it is a simplification, but that it works. From what he has said about surrounding a unit and then attacking, I think that would be the answer to taking the harder cities (as in real life.) Certainly it would still be hard to do, but that is realistic too.

I'm looking forward to getting an AAR here sometime soon. That should help us get a better picture of how some things work.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

...I'm looking forward to getting an AAR here sometime soon. That should help us get a better picture of how some things work.

Mr. C,

The first installment will be posted this weekend. Then, a steady flow will follow...

[Mr. Clark]

SWEET!

Thanks for the update!

[Desert Dave]

Originally posted by vonManstein39:

No assault or stacking sounds like

a serious drawback to me

However, I don't mind not having to cycle between a stack of units (right-click or whatever) on the screen. This gives a cleaner appearance, and you can scan and make an immediate assessment of what your strategic situation is.

I think -- once you get used to the new interface, and plan accordingly, this will work out fine. It seems very basic, but, given the number of units you might have, especially on East Front, this might prove to be a blessing.

[Jeff Heidman]

I am beginning to think that the $25 price point might be about right.

I am very much looking forward to this game, but I am wondering what it will have more in common with: Panzer General, or 3R? I was hoping for 3R, but that might not be that realistic given a 1-man development team.

Jeff Heidman

[Canuck_para]

I am looking forward to a COS type game with stronger AI and all of the new features I have been reading about. It does not sound like Panzer General at all since it is at a higher strategic level IMHO.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

AO,

Not at all. What I am saying is that the surrounded unit will have its readiness reduced during the supply-calculation phase. So, you see, it starts at a disadvantage because of a lower supply level. Once the shooting starts, everybody's readiness is reduced.

Oh I see, very good then.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I am beginning to think that the $25 price point might be about right.

I am very much looking forward to this game, but I am wondering what it will have more in common with: Panzer General, or 3R? I was hoping for 3R, but that might not be that realistic given a 1-man development team.

Jeff Heidman

Jeff,

Since I have played both (and, yes, I enjoyed both in their day), I can understand your concern. PG was fun, but its emphasis was more on beer and less on pretzels. With SC, there is a good balance between the two.

I think it is safe to say there are elements of both games to be found here. However, it is a lot closer to 3R (strategic scale, resource management, continuous action, etc.) than it is to PG (experience bonuses and I can't think of anything else).

Let me sum it up by saying this is the first game to take me away from Combat Mission in two years! :eek:

[Mr. Clark]

Let me sum it up by saying this is the first game to take me away from Combat Mission in two years!

WOW! That alone is a huge ad for the quality and fun of SC!

Sounds like a real winner. Looking forward to the beginning of the AAR this weekend.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I am beginning to think that the $25 price point might be about right.

I am very much looking forward to this game, but I am wondering what it will have more in common with: Panzer General, or 3R? I was hoping for 3R, but that might not be that realistic given a 1-man development team.

Jeff Heidman

Jeff,

Since I have played both (and, yes, I enjoyed both in their day), I can understand your concern. PG was fun, but its emphasis was more on beer and less on pretzels. With SC, there is a good balance between the two.

I think it is safe to say there are elements of both games to be found here. However, it is a lot closer to 3R (strategic scale, resource management, continuous action, etc.) than it is to PG (experience bonuses and I can't think of anything else).

Let me sum it up by saying this is the first game to take me away from Combat Mission in two years! :eek: </font>