Specialized Corps Units

[Desert Dave]

In the interest of adding ever more excitement, unpredictability, and limitless replay, I propose the following NEW unit.

It is NOT a separate unit; rather, a super modified EXISTING unit.

The lowly Corps.

Nine of 'em.

Each would have different ICONS.

Each would have different COSTS.

The unit capabilities would be adjusted as deemed necessary, and to suit the new conditions.

All might be improved by research, in our expanded tech-tree.

How the above 4 factors are implemented: Game Designers desires, and beta-testing.

The specialized Corps.

1) QUARTERMASTER Corps: May be used as part of the supply chain, which no-one hardly understands, except for Bill Macon... sometimes.

2) RECON Corps: Has one higher movement rate. Absorbs opponent's first attack, and is harder to spot. This would help diminish the need for Long Range Air superiority.

**(... if you have one particular factor that tends to upset the game-balance, as LR Air can do, then why not? Have several methods that would serve a similar purpose? You may fail in one research area, yet succeed in another!)

3) MECHANIZED Corps: Also higher movement, so to keep up with breakthrough armor. Consequently, an improved hard attack defense.

4) MARINE Corps: Much discussed already; same principles apply... so Air Power is not the only way to establish and secure a beach-head.

5) MOBILE ARTILLERY Corps: Only after appropriate research (... as with most of the others) Those that DISDAIN this idea altogether could just... not research it.

6) AIRBORNE Corps: It is not assumed that the entire corps is made up of air landed soldiers. There are airborne brigades and glider units and support. It might even "break in half" when the air lift is conducted. Thus, a size 10 unit would be... a size-5 that actually lands.

7) ENGINEER Corps: Meant to negate across river penalty, and have higher attack value VS fortresses.

8) ANTI-AIR Corps: Especially useful if placed near a City/Resouce hex, or next to a HQ.

9) SECURITY/GARRISON Corps: Less movement and offense; obviously, less expensive, so to serve as anti-partisans, or to hold rear area cities.

When you make your purchases, the Specialty Corps will be available underneath the regular Corps.

Those that don't like this idea, could simply ignore it and buy ONLY regular Corps, yes, of course.

When the unit appears on the map, it would have a DIFFERENT ICON, so for example, the Mechanized Corps would be a Country specific halftrack. The Anti-Air unit would be Brit Bofors or antigodlin' whistling 88s, etc.

The research tree would be narrower, and have variable costs, instead of the current situation where all chits cost the same.

And so, let's say... if you just don't want Mobile Artillery, then you wouldn't research it. If you were concerned about Strategic Bombing, then you would buy one or more AA units.

Now, there has been much discussion about scale and size.

Seems to me, and assuming there is a somewhat larger map, this would present INFINITE strategic permutations, thereby geometrically increasing replayability.

I am satisfied (... and, have been playing war games since the late 1950s :eek: ) that there is absolutely NO PROBLEM with scale.

These units are "specialty" units and could be utterly ignored by those who prefer... just a few units, as in chess.

They are not ENTIRELY made up of ONLY that special aspect... the unit is assumed to ALSO consist of support and/or other security battalions.

But many, and this obviously includes me, would prefer more... CHOICES, which would only serve to increase the fun and enjoyment... which is the entire idea behind amateur war... GAMES, true? :cool:

[ August 30, 2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

[Bill101]

I agree with some of this, but 9 options seems a bit too much.

Core units could be:

1) engineers (also able to make fortifications, slowly and expensively).

2) paratroops (potentially suffering heavy losses on landing - the kind of unit that needs to be relieved in the same turn, otherwise the enemy will destroy it).

3) anti-aircraft. Perhaps only available once Anti-aircraft radar level 3 is reached. But the problem is - would the raider be fired at by this unit, or intercepted by fighters, or both?

I'm not so keen on:

1) Marines. I already use Corps for this role, and am always pleased when I can capture something and still escape afterwards.

2) Supply. If we created a supply corps then HQs would be devalued.

3) Motorised Corps. Corps are already more mobile than armies, and an armoured group would in reality contain panzer grenadiers/motorised infantry etc., so I don't think a separate unit would be necessary.

4) As to mobile artillery - it would be great if we could have rockets with extra mobility! For me, rockets are SC's heavy artillery - at least once they're developed to have more than a few hexes range.

There's no reason why rockets couldn't have a little extra mobility once they've been researched to say, level 3.

Bill

[Bill101]

On second thoughts I also think anti-aircraft corps would be a mistake, as the scale is wrong.

To defend an adjacent hex the AA guns would need an enormous range, thus this is a little too unrealistic.

However, I have been thinking that perhaps instead of anti-tank research, the corps and armies could benefit from Heavy Weapons research.

This would boost up not only their anti-tank capabilities but also their anti-aircraft factors too.

Possibly others aswell?

[JerseyJohn]

Immer

The specialized Corps.

1) QUARTERMASTER Corps: May be used as part of the supply chain, which no-one hardly understands, except for Bill Macon... sometimes.

-- Good idea but if adapted I think HQs should lose their supply capability and also their slow speed; they should become fast corps with a general and his HQ. I'd make Quartermaster corps the same speed as armies and HQs regular corps speed; that way armored units would have to stop to let supplies catch up but it wouldn't be the interminable process it is now. And HQs would be be freed for their real function of influencing combat.

2) RECON Corps: Has one higher movement rate. Absorbs opponent's first attack, and is harder to spot. This would help diminish the need for Long Range Air superiority.

**(... if you have one particular factor that tends to upset the game-balance, as LR Air can do, then why not? Have several methods that would serve a similar purpose? You may fail in one research area, yet succeed in another!)

-- Can't justify it historically but a good idea to cut down on LR bomber effectifeness. I'd give it an extra two hexes of sight over regular units and limit bombers / Air Fleets sight to 1/2 their range.

3) MECHANIZED Corps: Also higher movement, so to keep up with breakthrough armor. Consequently, an improved hard attack defense.

-- Instead I'd prefer allowing Tank Armies when Industrial Tech 3 or greater is achieved. Presumably at that point a country would be able to manufacture and maintain the extra vehicles required. Tank Armies would travel at the same speed as tank corps and would be 150% as powerful while costing twice as much; in other words they wouldn't be as cost efficient as the smaller armored unit but would be a more effective unit within the non-stacking rules.

4) MARINE Corps: Much discussed already; same principles apply... so Air Power is not the only way to establish and secure a beach-head.

-- I've always supported this concept and think it's necessary.

5) MOBILE ARTILLERY Corps: Only after appropriate research (... as with most of the others) Those that DISDAIN this idea altogether could just... not research it.

-- How would it be organized? What is it? Your description is too vague here. Also, how can any form or artillery be seen in a corps or division sense? Perhaps as a unit placed behind the front line attacker with a range of two -- the assumption being it's guns are along the front lines then withdrawn after the initial bombardment; they could be seen as having a 100 mile range, of course. They would be similar to rockets but more mobile and transportable.

6) AIRBORNE Corps: It is not assumed that the entire corps is made up of air landed soldiers. There are airborne brigades and glider units and support. It might even "break in half" when the air lift is conducted. Thus, a size 10 unit would be... a size-5 that actually lands.

Good idea; and the unit would only maintain it's full stregnth when moving and fighting conventionally.

7) ENGINEER Corps: Meant to negate across river penalty, and have higher attack value VS fortresses.

--- A good idea also but except the engineer title is misleading as every field unit would have it's own combat engineers, or their equivalent. If they have extra abilities against forts and cities I'd limit each country to one such rebuildable unit.

8) ANTI-AIR Corps: Especially useful if placed near a City/Resouce hex, or next to a HQ.

-- I'd rather opt for AA Radar being extended to include regular units in the field to reflect improvements in surface to air defenses; sighting, mobile radar, etc..applied to all a nations field units, presumably equipped individually.

9) SECURITY/GARRISON Corps: Less movement and offense; obviously, less expensive, so to serve as anti-partisans, or to hold rear area cities.

-- In Operation Barbarossa there were only a handful of these, something like one security division per fifty armies. SS units were at first also considered reserve and secutiry. Of course, in their case they spread so much civil discontent that they had a negative security effect.

When you make your purchases, the Specialty Corps will be available underneath the regular Corps.

Yes, that would be the only way to do it.

[ August 31, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[pzgndr]

A mech corps would be very good, about half the size and cost of a tank group, similar to the infantry corps/army relationship. An airborne corps would also be nice, but should be strictly limited and about 3x the normal corps cost. Both of these corps would be useful additions.

Instead I'd prefer allowing Tank Armies when Industrial Tech 3 or greater is achieved.

This is an interesting idea but would create an odd situation where USSR may get more tank armies than Germany, and that would not be correct. If we go to user-defined force pool limits in SC2, then perhaps IT levels could be used to naturally increase limits for air and armor units. That would make sense.

- QUARTERMASTER Corps. Should we really split the HQ functions for command and logistics? While it isn't a particularly realistic feature, the current HQ unit forces players to make some interesting game decisions. If we reduce the significance of those decisions by creating more and smaller HQ-like units, then we risk losing a valuable feature of the game.

- RECON, ENGINEER, ANTI-AIR Corps. These really don't fit well at the current scale. COS did have engineers for making forts, but the types of massive fortifications we have in the game should be limited to those we start with. Perhaps we can rethink entrenchment values? Change the max entrenchment values from 2/4/6 to 4/6/8? Given time, just let units dig in more.

- MARINE Corps. Rather than a different ground unit, we should consider a different transport function. One transport would be like we have now, but limited to unloading in freindly ports only. A new assault transport could have combat and unloading ability for seaborne invasions, and cost about 2x or 3x as much.

- SECURITY/GARRISON Corps. If we have ALL new unit builds start at strength 5 (representing cadre or reserve units to be further built up over time) then a new 5-factor corps could perform security functions. And if you need it to do more, it can always be reinforced.

[Blashy]

I like this game and the most attractive thing about it is how simple it is to play.

If more and more options are added in turns into micro management, which I can't stand.

I'm not against it, but it should have options to turn on/off all these settings.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy

Not to worry, these ideas have as much chance of happening as -- well, let's just say they aren't about to happen.

Some of us like to toy with these concepts from time to time, if you go back you'll see threads almost identical to this one going back almost to the beginning.

Search past SC topics for micromanagement, for example, and you'll see numerous posts by Immer, Bill and myself saying we don't want it either.

[Edwin P.]

I agree, Retain the simplicity of Strategic Command.

As for more units;

1. Air Defense - perhaps only if it affected air units flying over the unit or you had an air unit with a range of 2 or 3 that was an interception only - ie fighter only - air units with minimal ground attack capability that were dedicated to air defense.

Or:

Air Fleet - Attack and Intercept (400MPP) - Range Medium

Bomber - Attack (500MPP)- Range Max

Air Defense Fleet - Intercept Only (300MPP) - Range Short

Air Recon - Recon Only (150MPP)- Range Medium

2. Marine - yes for attacks against a unit on shore with the ability to advance into the hex of an eliminated coastal unit- but have them suffer 50% to 90% losses if they fail to eliminate the shore unit and advance onto the beach.

Army Unit - Army Transport Can Not Attack a unit on a coastal hex.

Marine Unit - Marine Transport can attack a unit on a coastal hex and advance into that hex if the unit is destroyed. Suffers 50% to 90% losses if attack is repulsed.

3. Airborne - yes - especially with a lower strength on the turn that it lands - ie 5 as was suggested. Must start turn at Max Strength. Max Range 5 hexes (250 miles) Can not move on turn it lands. Loses readiness each turn it is out of supply.

Bill Macon - COS did have engineers for making forts, but the types of massive fortifications we have in the game should be limited to those we start with. Perhaps we can rethink entrenchment values? Change the max entrenchment values from 2/4/6 to 4/6/8? Given time, just let units dig in more.

I think that the maximum entrenchment value should increase if you disband an engineer unit on that hex. This would allow players to expend resources to fortify important hexes, at a cost in resources and time (1 turn build engineer unit, 1 turn to disband it and fortify the hex). Thus it would only benefit players that plan their defense in advance. Naturally if the hex is conquered the hex should return to normal.

I also like Jersey John's idea of having a higher Industrial Tech give you access to a new type of unit -Tank Army/Mechanized Infantry

Personally I would like to see advances in two areas (says Sub 4 and Sonar 3) give units more capabiities. Ie With Subs 4 and Sonar 3 a sub unit can attack other Sub Units. Or Sonar 4 gives you a greater chance to spot submarines.

[ September 02, 2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]