A slight change :)

[Jeff Heidman]

A proposal:

Right now, units can do one of the following:

1. attack

2. Move, then attack.

Lets change this to this:

Infantry (Corps and Army)

1. Attack

2. Move, then attack

Tanks

1. Attack, then attack again

1. Attack, then move, then attack.

2. move, then attack, then move

Mechanized Infantry

Just like tanks, but with the firepower of infantry + 1

Jeff

[rleete]

I would agree with the attack then move, for tanks. That would allow for a more blitz style of play, and simulate breakthroughs.

But not any two attack per turn. I think that it would really screw up any play balance.

[pzgndr]

This may be very difficult to change, depending on how Hubert set up his action point system in the code. It also gets us on that slippery slope where we start making things more complicated than they need to be.

Two items for comment. One, units attacking without moving should have a benefit, or units that move should attack with a penalty. This may already be in the combat model, but it's not clear. Two, it would be better to address retreats and advance after combat rather than complicating the move/attack sequence.

#2 should change combat just enough to give us the same overall effect you're looking for. If retreats and advances are added, another slight change would be to relook the damage tables to make combat less bloody and limit reinforcements per turn to about 4. I'm seeing too much destruction of whole armies combined with complete unit recovery (with experience loss noted) during single turns. We really should be seeing some more pushing about (with retreats), moderate losses, and gradual (limited) recovery over time. Some way to move away from the enemy and take on some reinforcements would also be nice. It's not a major problem in this game, but something that could be considered for an advanced combat model later.

Another comment about disbanding units, prompted by some of the gamey strategies posted recently. Not only should there be some inefficiency (like 75% of current MPP value, or whatever it is now), there should also be a delay of 1-2 turns before you see those MPPs returned to you. Make you think twice about trying to convert fleets to tanks.

[DevilDog]

You can't disband fleets. There already is a delay built in. You get 100% value back if currently on a city in your homeland when you disband (I think - but I've only disbanded on a city once), something like 50% value back if on a city out of your home land, 60% value back if in your homeland and not on a city, and something really low if not on a city and not on your homeland.

And if you think it's gamey - historically the French way outnumbered the Germans in armor, they were just spread out throughout the infantry units. It was organization (or lack thereof) that defeated the French. Congradulations to Hubert for being the first to allow the reorganization of the French armor into an actual fighting force.

[Marc Hameleers]

It's not the fact that you can reoganize the French army to have the full effect of its quality armor. It's the ease and speed with wich it is possible, wich raises a few eyebrowes, among wich my own . A turn delay seems the least of reasonable delays. It's not easy to reform divisions and doctrines within a matter of days

A what if scenario is easily enough made with the editor, if you want that !

Marc

[ June 05, 2002, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Marc Hameleers ]

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by DevilDog:

You get 100% value back if currently on a city in your homeland when you disband (I think - but I've only disbanded on a city once), something like 50% value back if on a city out of your home land, 60% value back if in your homeland and not on a city, and something really low if not on a city and not on your homeland.

The amount of MPPs you get for disbanding is based on readiness, which is tied to supply.

For the record, I think disbanding should either be removed from the game entirely or be made so unattractive that no decent strategies could be built around it.

[ June 05, 2002, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by R_Leete:

But not any two attack per turn. I think that it would really screw up any play balance.

In Clash of Steel some units could attack up to 7 times. :eek:

[Jorgen_Cab]

There should not be any Mechanized units, Tank groups are mechanized as they are.

Even an armoured division have plenty of Motorised infantry and armoured infantry in addition of allot of tanks.

Even Armies have a few Tank companies I believe.

Though, Tank groups could get the option of either move/attack or attack/move, but I don't consider it an important option.

[Hubert Cater]

Just to quickly answer this one, the combat and movement rules are not going to change for this game without changing the type of game that it currently is. But if and when a more advanced version is made, expect to see some 'grognard happy' changes in this department

Hubert