A suggestion for reinforcements.

[Bruce70]

[Disclaimer: The changes that I am going to suggest would more than likely throw the whole SC system (well play balance and AI at least) out of whack. So these changes are suggested for SC2 even though I am going to discuss them in the context of SC1.]

First of all what does unit strength represent? There are three possibilities IMO.

Unit Assets - the actual hardware and personel of the unit. I think this is unlikely since I cannot see any reason for L5 tank units to have 50% more tanks and crews than L1 tank units (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Resource Investment - an abstract representation of the resources invested in that unit. This is certainly true (in a literal sense) and it does make sense for a L5 unit to cost more than a L1 unit but I doubt that it is the whole story.

Combat Strength - the fighting ability of the unit.

I think the unit strength probably represents an amalgum of these three (Hubert?) but probably favouring 2 and 3.

So how do reinforcements work? There have been some complaints about reinforcements, most notably:

"it should not be possible to reinforce units on the front line" - If we are talking about unit assets then this would seem to be possible provided a unit is in supply. But if we are talking about combat strenth then is it really possible to raise the combat effectiveness from 10% to 100% in 2-4 weeks just by throwing replacements at it (whether the unit is on the front line or not)? I have no experience in the matter but I think that reoganisation of a low strength unit would take longer than that.

The second complaint is a general disatisfaction in the way experience works. Now if you replace 90% of a units personel in 2-4 weeks then you are going to end up with a green unit, there is no way around that. But if the unit is rebuilt over a longer period then perhaps the experience rules could be relaxed a little since the experienced core would have the time and relative numbers to instill some of the vet culture into the new recruits. Now this might be utter bollocks so feel free to say so.

Now to my suggestions (finally).

1) Reduce the rate at which reinforcements can be made. It could either be a flat rate (say 2-3pts per unit) or a variable rate (say 50% of current strength - rounded up). Significantly understrength units would require several turns to reach full combat effectiveness. While assets can be replaced quickly, this simulates the reorganisation required for the unit to operate effectively.

2) *Slightly* relax the experience rules. This is to provide some disinsentive to disbanding the unit and rebuilding a new one. This is a valid thing to do IMO but there should be some consequence. If you rebuild a unit you retain unit identity, which could be considered a form of experience.

3) Allow understrength units to be merged. Another way of maintaining unit experience. The readiness of merged units should be reduced to zero for the next turn to simulate the associated restructuring and to disuade players from doing this with front line units.

Comments/criticism welcome...

[iolo]

I agree wholeheartedly with 1). Even if reinforcments were limited to 5 or 6 / turn, that could add a lot of depth and realism.

I don't see 2) making a big difference one way or the other and I'm indifferent

I think 3) would dramatically change the game but I don't see it as being for the better, just different.

[pzgndr]

Lots to consider here. Firstly, I agree that max unit strength should probably remain at 10 regardless of tech level. It seems redundant to have both and historically unit organizations tended to get smaller and not larger as the war progressed.

#1) Reinforcement rates. The possibility of replacing 2 or 3 points and still being allowed to move or attack in the turn could be considered. If the action point system gets revised, this would be nice. Units adjacent to the enemy could have reinforcements limited either by total per turn (4-5?) or max strength (8?), and units not adjacent could completely rebuild. But this is already accounted for somewhat by supply rules, so maybe better to just consider a small modifier for adjacent enemy units?

2) Unit experience. IMHO, this is a gamey thing. It's neat to see units get medals and stuff, but washes out quickly when you consider the millions of average soldiers who fought bravely on all sides in all types of units. However, there is a recognized difference between green, experienced and elite units. It should be relatively easier to advance to experienced status and harder to advance to elite status. Conversely, it should be easier to lose elite status after significant losses than to lose experienced status. This is all somewhat philosophical, and would require revamping how experience is currently gained and lost. In math terms, the experience scale could be more exponential and less linear.

#3) Merging. This one's probably easier said than done. We do have disbanding which could be modified to give more or less unit value based on unit experience, and then those MPPs transformed into unit reinforcements for some other unit. This requires a decision. Does disbanding represent a gamey tactic for switching around unit types (as previously argued), or is it a fair representation of possible mergers of understrength units? A suggestion - limit disbanding to unit strength 3-4 or less, and provide about 50-75% MPP value (+/- experience) with a 1-turn delay. Not perfect, but may work better.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon

... so maybe better to just consider a small modifier for adjacent enemy units?

I like this idea, in that -- even with a front depth of 50 miles, the reinforcement would surely be hindered by the uncertain deployment of enemy forces.

Who but the most rash of commanders is going to rush replacements into a potentially treacherous situation? The local intelligence was not so exactly instantaneous. Seems as though the rate would be measured and with an eye to avoiding massacre of new troops, yes?

However, I don't mind the increase in size of units -- all the way to 15 if possible, because (when combined with experience) this makes for the "elite unit" that you refer to. It is not so much an indication of the # of troops, but a much more coherent and "war-wise" approach to combat by those (Self surviving) savvy veterans.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

I agree that max unit strength should probably remain at 10 regardless of tech level.

Actually I didn't say that I didn't like it. What I meant was, since it does increase it must not represent unit assets.

It should be relatively easier to advance to experienced status and harder to advance to elite status. Conversely, it should be easier to lose elite status after significant losses than to lose experienced status... In math terms, the experience scale could be more exponential and less linear.

Great idea. You would tend to save your elite units for when it really mattered.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

Who but the most rash of commanders is going to rush replacements into a potentially treacherous situation?

Well I don't think that the game system should stop you from being rash, but there should be consequences. OTOH, while it would be possible to rush in replacements to bring the unit up to 100% assets in 2-4 weeks, would it be possible (no matter how rash) to reach 100% combat effectiveness in 2-4 weeks without a rest from the front line to reorganise?

If unit strength does just represent assets then I think it should be possible to reinforce completely on the front line, but with the consequence of reduced readiness. But if unit strength incorporates combat effectiveness then it should not be possible.

I think that it might be a more intuitive system if unit strength did only represent unit assets and make readiness a more important factor in the combat system.