Reduce reinforcements when enemy units are adjacent, especially at city hexes!

[dougman4]

There simply must be an algorithm instituted whereby a unit cannot pop back up to full strength after being beaten down by multiple enemy units. When on enemy unit is adjacent, then reinforcements should be limited so that unit’s total strength is no higher than 7, 8, or 9. When 2 units are adjacent, the limit should be 5, 6, or 7. Otherwise, because of the relatively cheap reinforcements, the battlefield becomes a quagmire. This is especially needed at cities, where one lone corps can hold out indefinitely against a much stronger force.

[I/O Error]

That sort of rule makes sense in something like Panzer General II, where the units are MUCH smaller and the scale is MUCHO GRANDE smaller. When you're talking about Corps or Army level, we're seeing hundreds of miles of terrain. Most definitely, enough for a supply route and reinforcements.

In a game using a scale so grand, I say your idea is a poor one unless units are actually cut off entirely.

[dougman4]

Ahh, but you make my point exactly. When a unit becomes increasingly encircled then replacements should be harder to get. At the extreme, a completely encircled unit should get little or no replacements. That is what encirclement does, and to model otherwise is silly.

But, I don't insist on forcing this on everyone. Please make this an option that can be toggled ON or OFF and everyone can be happy!!

[I/O Error]

No, I said I would only support your idea when a unit is COMPLETELY encircled, and perhaps not even then. I don't agree with your "increasingly encircled" idea.

[ev]

Regarding Reinforcement Rates

I also have some trouble with the rate at which you can rebuild a unit.

Regardless of whether a unit is adjacent or away from enemy units, I am troubled by the idea of instant reinforcements. Say I am the Axis player, I have a German Infantry Army all the way in the Urals, and, provided proper supply routes I can reinforce it as much as I want instantly? If the Army had been decimated from 12 to 2, I can send a quarter of a million men to reinforce it all the way from Germany within a week. And all these men will be integrated into their fighting units and take fully entrenched fighting possition immediately? Even if the game units represent very large armies and distances, and specially because we have such very large armies and distances, something should be worked out.

Even if a unit is not adjacent to an enemy unit, a max reinforcement of four strength points should be impossed. I would also agree that units adjacent to enemy units should be further hindered.

[dougman4]

I want to love this game; it is precisely the type of game that can become a cult classic. It is an ideal hotseat platform, of which there are few alternatives out there.

However, with the current reinforcement rules the playability becomes a quagmire. Corps can often indefinitely hold out against far superior forces. Beaten down units magically bump back up to full strength even when they are engaged with the enemy or encircled.

ANYTHING would be better. If you will only concede replacements should be reduced or not allowed when encircled, that would be a welcome improvement. Also, even EV’s suggestion above that replacements should never be higher than a fixed amount such as “4” would be a welcome improvement.

What’s more, this isn’t a zero sum game. Your opinion doesn’t have to be the prevailing one, nor mine. Simply make replacement limitations an option that can be toggled on or off. To debate something that can make everyone happy is ludicrous. To imagine the current replacement system isn’t a severe game deficiency is naïve.

Several other grognards and myself are putting this game on the shelf until you address it. You can’t possible imagine it to be the slightest bit fun or realistic to have quagmired battle fronts where after every turn the board magically resets to be the same as the turn before. If you don’t address this, we’ll put this game back on the shelf and go back to A&A and PGII which are the two best hotseats out there. And, I had hopes for SC…

[Hubert Cater]

If you will only concede replacements should be reduced or not allowed when encircled

[dougman4]

Thanks for the info, Hubert. Clearly I still don’t know the game inside and out. However, after banging my head for 3 days (almost continuous hotseat action over the weekend) in a game that is still nowhere close to ending – I believe I can speak authoritatively as to playability.

Several dynamics conspire to form the quagmire.

1) You can’t shoot and then move. This prevents reserve troops from swapping with the front line troops and finishing off units.

2) You can easily reinforce to full strength with enemy units adjacent.

3) Reinforcements are cheap, enabling you to max out all units every turn.

4) You can’t move a unit, deselect it, and then fire it later. This prevents proper planning of the battle, to include comparing forecast battle resolution among units.

5) You can spawn troops at will at cities that are contested with enemy units adjacent.

I would be FOREVER GRATEFUL if these features were toggles, so that we could customize it to our tastes. I shouldn’t be forced to waste my life for 3 days with nothing to show for it when a minor tweak may have given me a satisfying conclusion in a reasonable amount of time. What’s more, people’s desire to do so will abate quickly.

It simply shouldn’t be that I can whack enemy forces with all my strength, perhaps knocking some units down to 1, 2, or 3, and then seeing these units magically maxed out the next turn. Then, the enemy does the same to me, knocking several of my units down. And, then I magically max out my units. The cycle is endless. The front never moves. Believe me, the enjoyment diminishes quickly.

[Hubert Cater]

I would be FOREVER GRATEFUL if these features were toggles, so that we could customize it to our tastes.

It's an interesting idea but to be honest these would not be the easiest changes to make, even to have as options considering AI, playabillity and balance.

To address some of the issues you seem to have been experiencing, as you've noticed the key is to not allow your enemy to rebuild weakened units and to destroy them outright, but all is not lost if you fail to do so, careful management of your forces and you will continue to gain experience from combat in the field, while consistently reinforced units lose experience and their ranks are filled with green troops. This will also have an affect on future battles, plus if the defending units are attached to an HQ, that HQ's experience will drop resulting in a lower combat morale bonus passed on to subordinate or attached units. The opposite of course occurs for your own units. In the long run, the tide will eventually turn in your favour so long as you can maintain the offensive.

As to the quagmire, I can only assume you speak of the long and drawn out battles on the eastern front, if this is the case it is to be expected since the battles were in fact long and hard and lasted almost 4 years, yet despite this quick battle victories are possible and may just require an alteration of your strategy within the current game system. Don't believe me, I'm sure some of the SC Field Marshalls here can give you a serious run for your money, and if not I may even be persuaded to enter a challenge or two once the TCP/IP patch goes live Let me know if any of this helps.

Hubert

[SeaMonkey]

Aw Oh! Does this mean the "master" may reveal some of his tricks, or do you only play with FoW on? How interesting that the designer/developer may learn a few things from his pupils. Says something for the future SC.

[Hubert Cater]

Only with FoW, can't give everything away!

Hubert

[dougman4]

Thanks again, Hubert, I gain insight with every posting you make.

1) I understand the added options might not be simple to code. But, don’t let playability or balance deter you. The very fact they are options lets the player decide what conditions he wants to play under are (and he can always play using the default settings!). In PBEM and hotseat, both players play under the same conditions, and our preferred settings may differ significantly from yours. If AI complicates the coding, perhaps start with hotseat or PBEM – which to me is the true fun of SC and the reason many people buy the game.

2) While you wonderfully laid bare the cause effect regarding HQ units and experience, I found over time the logjam doesn’t un-jam. Even successful attackers have to reinforce after a few times of whacking down enemy units. This depletes the experience they previously had gained. Presently, there is no counterbalance effective at unclogging static battle lines – which is why I would be so happy to see the five golden options I described above implemented.

3) This phenomenon happens in France as easily as in Russia. It is by no means unique to Russian territory; I’ve seen stationary battlefronts in France go on for many game years.

4) Naturally, there are many talented players out there. I tend to believe though, that experienced wargamers will find “sticky” battle lines difficult to avoid, and last far longer than they wish.

5) But I hold out hope that none of this need be debated, as this becomes a matter of preference, and I don’t wish to subjugate anyone to my preference. I would just like to be able to toggle on the preferences of my choosing.

[dougman4]

Sometimes I get the feeling that players must believe it is only fun if all the pieces on the board are maxed out in strength.

I'd submit that it is in fact more exciting if through battle you could visibly see the attrition. It would be fascinating to watch units with strengths under 5 duke it out for control of an important location.

Everybody would be under the same rules, so your enemy would have to nurse the wounded units just as you would. But, you'd occasionally get to see them square off against other wounded units or have to withstand a battle against a fresh unit at a higher strength.

However, none of this ever happens. It is comical:

Player 1's Turn:

a. Fight with units with strength of 8 or more

b. Reinforce units of 7 or less

c. Buy a new unit on the rare occasion one was lost on the previous turn.

d. Research if you have 250 MPPs left over.

Player 2's Turn:

a. Fight with units with strength of 8 or more

b. Reinforce units of 7 or less

c. Buy a new unit on the rare occasion one was lost on the previous turn.

d. Research if you have 250 MPPs left over.

Repeat

Repeat

Repeat

It’s like watching paint dry. I’m sure we could code this routine so we could play Axis and Allies or Panzer General II and see some variety and progression.

[ October 23, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

[Fubarno]

I, having played out 6 PBEM games, winning 4 and losing 2, and have yet to see this quagmire develop that many people experience.

Don't the strength points of units reflect its organization and not just manpower. If a corps is 40,000 to 60,000 men and it is reduced to a 1 strength, does that mean all that is left are 4,000 - 6,000 effective troops? Or does it mean perhaps that maybe 20,000 are left and they can be reorganized to be more effective, as well as adding more units, equipment supplies, etc? Remember that this game is an abstraction.

[dougman4]

Fubarno, you are truly blessed to have avoided the quagmire. Either your opponents are embarrassed to resort to this fail safe technique or they haven’t stumbled upon it. I agree that operational strength is some sort of abstraction, not limited to manpower losses. However, equipment losses and other factors can’t magically be restored to full strength in a week while engaged with the enemy.

[ev]

Part of the problems with Replacements in SC is that you don't need to plan for them.

You got hammered last turn in a critical spot, and you bring reinforcements directly from your production pool into the most critical point in the battlefront. And this reinforcements are not just light untrained infantry. They can be heavy tanks or airplanes.

A player should be forced to plan reinforcements in advance. This can be impemented through the use of Reinforcement Pools, which must be filled up one turn in advance. So if you don't buy enough reinforcements in advance you are stuck with week front lines and the oponnent can achieve a breakthrough.

I would suggest making at least three reinforcement pools: Air, Ground, and Naval. In theory, your could have a replacement pool for each and every type of unit. But for now, just 3 pools would be just fine.

Of course more expensive Tank Groups would require more Reinf Points, while Inf. Corps would require less Reinf Points, to achieve the same increment in actual strength.

The AI could probably handle this well. First you need to keep enought units to make the front. Second you need enough reinforcement to bring them to full stregth. Then, you need reserve units and reserve reinforcements that can be set as percentages of your font line strength.

...anyway, I am shure SC staff can come up with even better algorithms.

But reinforcement process right now is way too easy and quick... and, consequently, too many a battle become a battle of attrition instead of a battle of breakthrough and mobility.

And again, I also would limit the amount of reinf points a unit can receive in a single turn. I have been thinking on this since my last posting. I would suggest the following;

Inf Corps max 5 points x turn

Inf Armi max 4

Tnk Grp max 3

Air Fleet max 3

Rockets max 3

Bomber max 2

Subs max 2

Cruiser max 2

Battleship max 1

Carrier max 1

Yes, it would take months to repair a Battleship or a Carrier. But that's the way it was in real life.

[dougman4]

EV, outstanding suggestions! I'm all for ANY constraining influence with regard to reinforcements. Any.

A

N

Y

or backwards, YNA!

I'd submit though, it is not even a battle of attrition as the continuous stream of MPPs guarantees a continuous stream of reinforcements. So, there's really no attrition involved, just a quagmired battlefield.

Please give us toggle-able reinforcement constraint options so everyone is happy!

[urgrue]

i think the reinforcement system is okay. not great, but adequate.

maybe i'm just good at suspending disbelief, but when i see a stalemate develop, i see it as a lack of me having sufficient air power, and/or tactical/numerical superiority. from that perspective its realistic enough, for me.

was WW1 one big fat stalemate? didnt the combatants in WW2 avoid this situation precisely with superior tactics/numbers/technology? (this is not a rhetorical question, im actually sincerely asking)

there were plenty of occasions in WW2 where even short advances were gained only after long, hard battles, on every front.

im no expert, but after all the game is very large-scale and abstract.

what i see a lot is a case where 3 or 4 of my units cannot ever take a city held by one corps. it can hang on indefinitely, until i "get lucky" and am able to knock it out in one go. but given the sort of city-fighting that took place in russia for example, it doesnt break my suspension of disbelief. i just take it as a sign that i need to bring in a couple air fleets...

it is simplistic, but given the scale of the game, well, this isnt third reich after all.

regardless, one idea for a "solution" i had was, what if reinforcements were units? you could buy a "ghost image" of any unit for the same price as a full stock of reinforcements of said unit. youd have to build it like any other unit, and have to walk it over (or operate, transport, etc) to where you want it to go, and "merge" it into a depleted unit.

this might bring about interesting strategic challenges, where you'd have a second line behind your front-line, of reinforcements, and you'd have to try and manage them into the best locations from where they can best reach the most depleted units.

whether or not they would be visible to the enemy, capable of attacking/defending, is another topic. i would say yes to the first and no to the second.

yet one should be able to call up reinforcements when in/near your own city, cut-off or not (to simulate drafting locals).

personally, i think this goes a bit too far beyong the scope of the game, so i vote no. but its a just an idea since everyone's tossing ideas...

[dougman4]

Urgrue, would that I could unclog the “bog” with superior tactics or numerical superiority. What invariably happens in my games, though, are massive fronts on the east and west. Each front is many units thick. The units are stuck, not one can move anywhere, as every hex remotely near the front is occupied. The most you can typically bring to bear for an attack is 2 or 3 units, never enough to kill a unit in one turn and it magically reinforces to full strength the next turn. So, you can see it has nothing to do with tactics or having sufficient strength – both fronts are completely engaged with many units deep that never get to fight because you can’t stack units or move units to the back after they fire.

Urgue, I’ll champion any scheme that is a constraining influence on replacements, to include your “ghost” reinforcements!

[Ecthelion]

i vote also for the limited replacement option, the units in contact with the enemy shoudnt be able to replace all losses, this way you replace your front line unit with another fresh unit or you get weaker.

I think the germans take away his units from combat to reorganize and give rest to them.

The option to have diferent pools of infantry , tanks or planes is very interesting but not resolves the problem of quagmire battlefield. If you have enough replacements you can replace all the losses as now.Perhaps a limited replacement pool of tanks or airplanes per turn...

[urgrue]

Originally posted by dougman4:

What invariably happens in my games, though, are massive fronts on the east and west. Each front is many units thick. The units are stuck, not one can move anywhere, as every hex remotely near the front is occupied.

Interesting. I don't really have this problem. If a front like that develops, I realize I need to build enough air fleets and/or rockets to be able to punch a hole in that front line. In expending MPPs on that build-up, the situation already loses stability, and either he punches through before I succeed, or I manage to hold on and punch through myself. Either way, a permanent stagnant front-line has never developed for me.

However, i'm just a lame n00b, who has never even succeeded in conquering the UK, so...I couldn't even dream of a front-line "many units" thick on the eastern front. Is there some kinda "triple MPP bonus" option I've missed?

But regardless, the question is, is this unrealistic? Like WW1? I don't really know, but in my n00bie limited playing experiences, i've not experienced much that i find blatantly unrealistic. Except maybe, when i have three carriers, a battleship, and four units endlessly pounding one corps in a city and they can never get through.

I think I would be happy enough simply if the amount of reinforcements a cut-off, fully-surrounded city gets was lowered. Or lowered over time, maybe (as local able-bodied youngsters ran out)?

[dougman4]

Ecthelion, I’m in favor of any constraining influence with regard to reinforcements. Hopefully, a couple of different approaches can be coded as options. Your comment of pools not necessarily being constraining (at least in the near term) is insightful, and should be kept in mind when exploring that route.

Urgrue, after a 48 hour hotseat marathon on the weekend. I spawned countless Allied corps in France and kept Germany at bay until Russia entered the war. The quagmire was extraordinary in size and depth and bogged movement. Germany could not mount any blitz, even though it took the Low Countries quickly. If this is to resemble WWII at all, Germany must be able to advance when it has superior forces.

Early in the game, there is no time to make an intensive buildup of air power and rockets – and nor should Germany have to buildup up even more before it invades France (as the game is supposed to have already modeled the relative strengths of forces as the war began). In fact, delaying Germany’s attack in France makes the game unwinnable for Germany. Moreover, it is silly that you should need to have as much or more air units as ground units – and to win I find I must resort to more air than ground. Of course, if my opponent has (through luck) researched higher jet power advancements, there is no way whatsoever to advance in the quagmired battlefield.

On both fronts, having units 3 to 5 units thick on both armies is the norm – with only a fraction of them actually getting to fight in a turn because of the constraints (can’t stack, can’t fire and move back for a new unit to move forward and fire, can’t deselect a unit after moving fire it later, no tank blitz ability, no retreating, magic reinforcements to full strength even when engaged with the enemy).

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by dougman4:

Urgrue, after a 48 hour hotseat marathon on the weekend. I spawned countless Allied corps in France and kept Germany at bay until Russia entered the war. The quagmire was extraordinary in size and depth and bogged movement. Germany could not mount any blitz, even though it took the Low Countries quickly.

This should never happen, this quagmire.

And, I do mean NEVER.

I don't care if you disband the French navy, and the one Air Fleet, AND bring the 2 corps over from Afrika, AND put BEF Army in Flanders, AND support the coastal regions with British Spitfires and carrier-based fighters, AND Germany gets exactly -- ZERO! tech advances, AND you mysteriously summon many more corps.

I don't care. I mean... NEVER.

[sogard]

I agree with Immer. One or both players in this game simply are not experienced enough, yet, to see how the Axis prevents this.

[ev]

I am all for limiting reinforcements. See my note above. Allow me one more suggestion:

Right now you can buy new units at any city at any time, provided you have enough MPP's.

Thus a Russian can buy several corps, armies and even tank groups next to a threatened city ... provided that city is not isolated.

Now, to some extent this is fair and realistic. The Soviets threw untrained troops into the front line all the time. And, in some cases they threw in untrained tank units, without paint straigth from factory (believe it was in Stalingrad, and believe some were driven by factory workers).

But these units were barely battleworthy. Many infantry soldiers did not even have riffles. They were not "green" troops with a few months of basic training and equipment. They were substantially below green and most of the were slaughtered. They stopped the Germans, but they paid an awfull price.

Towards the end of the war, the Germans, also did a similar thing with the Volks Granediers, throwing boys and elderly into the front lines. Again, these units were not nearly as battleworthy as a regular "green" unit.

I would suggest that all new units are bought at a core strength of 3 or 4 points, and subsquently brought to full strength through reinforcements. If you want to throw them into battle at their initial purchasing value, fine; but don't expect them to have the same fate the Russians had in 1941. If you want them to be truly battleworthy, take a bit of extra time to reinforce them.

Now, I also feel we should revisit the idea of reinforcement limits. Previously I suggested that units should have limits on the amount of reinforcement they could receive, and furthermore, infantry corps should be easier to reinfoce, while tanks and airplanes should take longer. Combine both of this ideas: tanks and airplanes would take more time to be fullly trained and operational, while infantry corps would be ready very quickly.

Also high tech units will take longer to go up to 14 and 15 strength points. But, it should also take longer to train units into more sophisticated weaponry.

And, if you are really desperate, or you simply don't want to wait until you bring your units to full strength you can always throw them into battle understrength. ...often you won't have a choice at this, and we will see more weak units in the battlefield, near breakpoint levels, and a more fluid and nervecracking frontline. (Probably not for the faint of heart, but, I for one would enjoy it a lot.)