Enable units to move after they shoot if they hadn’t already!

[dougman4]

After HOURS of tedious fighting along a perfectly stationary Russian front line, it became obvious this feature must be modified. Units must be able to fire on the front line, and move back so that units in the back can move forward and attack. Otherwise, since the game allows you to reinforce completely back to full strength, the battlefield become a stationary quagmire reminiscent of WWI instead of WW2.

[dougman4]

I take it that this idea has overwhelming support as there are no naysayers?

[daystrom]

OK, I'll bite.

Let me start by saying that on many an occasion I wished I could do that very thing (but not allowing my opponent to do it at the same time ). Here, however, is why I feel that the current model works as is:

In terms of realism, I would say that the ability to do this would be a feat of logistics far surpassing Hannibal's crossing the Alps. This would amount to launching a corps or better sized attack, withdrawing them while engaged head-on with a hostile enemy, moving another corps or better up to the front and then launching a second attack.

In terms of game mechanics, can you imagine the blood bath that the Eastern Front would be with both sides having this ability? It can already be a bit of one as is. If both sides had this capability, I think losses would far exceed either sides ability to replace/reinforce them, so that by 1942 there would only number some 7-10 corps per side (Germany & USSR) hammering it out to decide the fate of Europe.

Just my $0.02 (so take it for what it is worth)

cheers,

Ray

[Flashblade]

The problem I see is units never retreat... you have to have to completely DESTROY an army to move 50 miles... You also can't combine attacks, so even if you are attacking with 3 units in one turn, you get 3 individual attacks instead of one big one.

Of course you can't really have combined attacks if you can't stack units.

No stacking seeming to indicate that a corps and an army cannot fight within the same ~50 mile area.

[J Wagner]

A common mistake whan launching a Russian Offensive is to attack simultaneously all along the front. You usually will not have enough units to cover any effective breakthroughs so you will indeed face a WWI type slugfest. The key is to develope a strategy where you mass units in one or two fronts, whether it be north, center, or south, and punch a hole in the Russian line, then flood your reserve units through, flanking and encircling along the way. You simply launch minor attacks along the static portion of your line, making smaller advances and draining Russian MMP's. I have seen many Russian units retreat during these attacks, giving up real estate for time so this strategy does happen in the game.

Having said this however, I do support the idea of movement after combat to occupy the hex after a unit is eliminated, and movement after combat if the unit had not previously moved.

[ October 17, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: J Wagner ]

[dougman4]

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t make the battlefield a quagmire by having magical replacements that instantly return the board to the state of the previous turn AND not let units move away from the front line after they fire. If they can move and then fire, why in the world can’t they fire and move? Talk about capriciousness at its worst! The only chance the board has of changing in this game with any regularity is for units to be destroyed completely. Unless the units starting a turn next to a unit can fire and move back and allow fresh units from the rear to come in and finish the enemy unit off, you have a quagmired battlefield that verges on unplayable.

[ October 21, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

[Jeff Heidman]

I don't agree with the proposed solution, but do think there is definitely a problem. Games between relatively "decent" opponents turn into WW1ish slugfests, with no real ability to "break" a line.

But the "solution" is a bad diea because it will break other parts of the game. The game as is relies on the attack or move decision in too many ways to break it lightly. Allowing a unit to attack and then move is very different from moving and attacking. Moving then attacking is an offensive maneuver completely; you are basically gicing up a position to attack somewhere else. Allowing a unit to attack and then move would allow someone to attack while at the same time defend somewhere else entirely.

Note that my point is based purely on game play, not on what is "realistic". Realism in terms of game play has no real bearing on an inately unrealistic system of IGO-UGO grand strategy where "combat" is a discrete act, seperate from movement.

Jeff Heidman

[dougman4]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Jeff, and I like your Hitchhiker's quote.

We're agreed as to the quagmire, it certainly resembles WW1 trench warfare more than the mobile battlefield of WWII. If you aren’t fond of my solution (being able to move after shooting), won’t you at least support a toggle that turns on or off a feature so that others and I could use it?

I fear there are only 2 other means that would alleviate this phenomenon (the SC Quagmire):

1) curtail reinforcements as enemy units move to adjacent positions, and

2) make reinforcements more expensive so that it isn’t possible to reinforce all weak units every turn.

In my mind, for the sake of game play, I’d prefer a toggle so that I could customize each of these elements. Why should the current setting be forced upon me if I prefer WW2 action as opposed to a WW1 quagmire?

[iolo]

Can we all agree to a moratorium on the use of the word 'quagmire'?

[dougman4]

OK, though sometimes the squeaky wheel gets oiled. Hubert is unflappable though, something I much admire. He's shown no irritation with me or my choice of words so far. Probably more forbearing than I would be if the roles were reversed! Perhaps he knows I'm passionate about the game, that my heart's in the right place.

[SeaMonkey]

I have heard so many very good potential modifications to this game that I believe may cause disasterous results my brain is numbed. Point and counter-point, there is no possible way to really establish which will work and which will not with out actually playing them out. I'm talking about the good recommendations that are viable within this game engine. I suggest that Hubert create a proto SC from our current SC that we may experiment with. Only he knows what is susceptable to variation. This will be the fore runner of SC II which could in deed be the ultimate WW II strategic simulation, easily played and balanced. You see Hubert what you've created, "This is your Life".

[dougman4]

I guess I bristle at the thought that this is so complex. Given that time and money are constraints, simply pick the low hanging fruit – the easiest or most popular options to code.

Don’t sweat playability or balance. The whole point of making them options is that players who choose the options live with the corresponding ramifications. If the options are not invoked, the current game is unchanged.

There is only upside in coding these options.

[ev]

Originally posted by dougman4:

Units must be able to fire on the front line, and move back so that units in the back can move forward and attack.

I would allow advance after combat only if the defending unit was completely destroyed.

Also, I would limit advance after combat only to the hex occupied by the defending unit.

Finally, I would make it easier for tanks and harder for slow moving infantry armies to advance after combat. Here are some alternatives:

Alternative 1. Only allow tanks to move advance after combat.

Alternative 2. If the unit moved before combat, it most have at least to movement points left in order to advance after combat. Because tanks move the furthest, they will more often be able to advance after combat. Slow moving Inf. Armies would have to be very close to target in order to advance after combat.

Alternative 3. (My favorite.) Combine option 2 above, plus, if the atacker is a tank, and has more than two movement points left, it may occupy the defending hex at the movement cost applicable to that hex +1 and then be allowed to move the remaining movement allowance.

...I think Tank Groups should be something more than just superstrong armies.

[dougman4]

EV, I like the way you think. I'd welcome any of your suggestions as toggle-able options!

Just, please give us options so that those of us who prefer a different playability and balance have the opportunity to do so!

[ October 22, 2002, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

[japinard]

I disagree with this. If you inititate this it downlplays the importance of research.

[dougman4]

Research remains undiminished because everyone must research to keep up with their opponents. So, similar units tend to go up against similar units. There is just no way to kill a unit before it gets a chance to reinforce.

What's more, since everyone must research - it is only luck if someone is more advanced than another. This game shouldn't solely be about luck.

[geozero]

The whole game (while lots of fun) is a huge quagmire!!! It truly is more like pre-WW2 combat. It's virtually impossible to mount a significant attack without reserves, and in order to hold a front, you must continually reinforce, therefore depleting points in which to build that all important reserves for the winning attack!

It's a catch - 22 situation.

I remember the game HiComman (sorry to bring up this comparison) but it truly serves as an example of a different type of gaming ability.

With all the continual reinforcement of depleted units I can't see trying to build up research or new units in any significant quantities.

This is all assuming playing the 1939 campaign without any mods.

[dougman4]

Yes, Geozero, SC does much more closely resemble pre-WW2 combat. The problem is that the game limits the land units you can bring to bear to attack in a turn. You can’t stack units. You can’t move units to the rear after you attack – DESPITE THE FACT YOU MAY NOT HAVE MOVED. You can’t move a unit to attack, deselect it, and then still fire it. You have no artillery with which to attack from long range (rockets are laughable), which given the scale is understandable. However, the very scale of the game makes non-stacking archaic. You couldn’t intentionally design a situation for quagmired battles any better. Every single relevant factor ensures SC battles are so. Even airpower! Whoever, by bad luck, is behind in jet power research has essentially lost the only remaining way to remove beaten down enemy units from the board. So, therein lays the cause for the bogged battles.

I’m surprised you don’t have MPP’s left over after reinforcement for new units and research. That’s never been the case for me.

I likewise caveat: This is all assuming playing the 1939 campaign.

[Krikke]

Best way to break trough is airpower. If you don't have that, another good way might be to lure out the AI. Create a small salient, where you can beat on an enemy unit with more then 2 of you. Have your most experienced units do the fighting and make sure they are all full strength. I'm not sure if the last will work, I never tried to lure in the AI, but when there was a salient or corner in my frontline, I always tried attacking there, and that usualy worked.

I like the idea of being able to occupy the hex of the unit you just destroyed. I don't like being able to fight and retreat. That's something you can do with a company, not with an army of 100000 man.

[Zeres]

Very interesting thread guys. I really like ev's ideas for tanks, they should shouls be able to do a few things that regular infantry can't do. While I was reading it got me thinking about something in a similar vain. To me it seems like very experienced heavy tanks should be able to force an enemy to retreat. If Rommel is attacking a green Russian Corp and hits him with a devastaing attack ( like 4 or more points) that Russian should have a forced retreat. Does that make sense to anybody else? You wouldn't have to change the game mechanics to much. it just doesn't feel right to me somehow when a unit is outclassed and getting clobbered and he just stands there. It would create the breakthroughs you we're talking about too. Anyway, nice thread. Check you later.

[hans-micael]

Just a thought - In the old CoS tank units had the ability to overrun and you could eliminate sorrounded units by cutting of their retreat routes. The blitzkrieg were also a very efficient way to simulate the impact of panzer attack through the Ardennes on the allied forces, which had decreased supply and morale.

If we had these extra opportunity - the WWI situation would only happen after poor play and not when two able players met... The real situation in Barbarossa should reflect the fact that the sovjets gave men and land to gain time to build the eastern army...

Hans-Micael

[hans-micael]

Another very efficient way to eliminate units and negate fortifications were to cut of suply by the use of paratroops in Clash of Steel.

the suply value exist in the game but does contain the same level of sofistication as it did in CoS. Isolated city:0; Isolated Army Group:3; Isolated city in home country:5; City in sea suply:7; and a novelty Artificial Harbors:10 and so forth - these suply rules would definately make an improvement to the WWI situation and they would not involve the shoot move dificulty...

Hans-Micael

[hans-micael]

... an extra thought - if there were a weather controled impulse function from 4 to 10 impulses per turn as in CoS - and a limit to two impulses were you could enter newly created units and a production time on units - you would not be able to build the strong line of magically created units every impulse which would give you the chance to build an offensive and pound a way on the line and then breakthrough... In CoS these functions gave both sides a chance to plan and execute very different strategies...

Hans-Micael

[Briggs]

SC isn't broke. It doesn't need fixing.

[Zeres]

SC isn't broke. It doesn't need fixing.

-----------------------------------------

I completely agree. I think we all do. I just can't wait to see what they are going to do with this engine. It's already the best game in this genre ever. I've been having the best hot-seat games with SC that I have ever had. The point is the patched version is better than the first version. Now they have added the Lan play which I don't think has been done with a game like this before. It's amazing and it's only going to get better.