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

[ev]

I liked Zeres idea of forced retreat and Hans Michael idea of overrun.

WWI's static warfare was broken by the tank, because the tank was something else, not just a stronger infantry soldier.

Mechanized Units including tanks, engineers, infantry, artillery and close air support could keep "momentum" going.

Allowing a tank group to overrun the last remnants of a beaten down unit would be a very good way to simulate this special hability of the mechanized formtions. These are some of the requirements I would impose on overruns:

1. Sufficient movement allowance: Overruning a unit should cost an extra movement cost on top of regular movement expenses.

2. Overwhelming odds. The attacker should have overwhelming odds over the defendant. Overrun should be used only against weakened units. I would probably require 5 to 1 odds. But some playtesting would be appropriate here.

Actually 5 to 1 odds is not that dificult to obtain. The attacker would probably be an experienced, well supplied, full stregth Tank atttached to a good HQ. The defending unit would probably be a badly battered corps, or occassionally a badly battered army.

3. The extra movement points and the required overwhelming odds would make it very difficult for infantry to overrun, but in theory, it should be possible for infantry to overrun other infantry, except for the following caveat:

4. It should be harder to overrun a fast moving defender. Where the defending unit can move at least as fast as the the attacking unit, the defending unit should have a random chance to retreat from an overrun. If the defending unit is even faster than the attacking units, it should have an even better chance to retreat from an overrun, (This simulates the hability of mobile units to conduct a mobile defense.)

5. I am inclined to recomend that an attacking unit that just made an overrun should also be allowed to perform a regular attack after it finished its turn ...unless the defending unit succesfully executed a mobile defense. This simulates the delays and disruption caused by an efective mobile defense. But. again, play testing is needed.

6. I do not know if a unit defending from an overrun should be allowed to retreat over friendly units. Any ideas here?

[dougman4]

Panzer Lehr, you should understand that constructive criticism is markedly different from derision. Those of us who see game unbalances that need tweaking are not saying that the game isn’t a wondrous concept. We provide ideas for making it better, or at least customizable, so that everyone can be happy. I don’t insist upon forcing my ideas upon anyone, I just want the opportunity to play SC in a more balanced fashion through toggle-able options. Blindly supporting SC as perfect as it stands, while loyal, is missing the point entirely.

Krikke, the retreat idea was intended to un-bog the battlefield. If a (defending) unit fails a morale check or has substantially inferior strength (to the attacker) or something akin to that, then it should retreat. If there is no place to retreat to, it should surrender and be removed from the map. This concept works well in other games, and I would be ecstatic to see it is a toggle-able option in SC.

Zeres, I too like EV’s idea that tanks should be able to occupy the location of a vanquished defender as well. And, I’d likewise like to see a retreat option added as I mentioned to Krikke.

Hans-Micael, an over-run attack by tank units is a great idea that also worked well in Panzer General series. And, I whole-heartedly agree that reinforcements should be reduced and eliminated as a unit is increasingly surrounded. I’m not familiar with the controlled impulse function you mentioned or paratroopers cutting off supply, but these ideas sound intriguing!

To all, it seems to me that it easier to reinforce units than to supply them. Seems like I can click on a unit and see a less than 10 rating for supply and still am able to max out reinforcements. If that unit were having a supply penalty, why wouldn’t it also have a reinforcement penalty?

[ October 28, 2002, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

[Briggs]

Originally posted by dougman4:

Panzer Lehr, you should understand that constructive criticism is markedly different from derision. Those of us who see game unbalances that need tweaking are not saying that the game isn’t a wondrous concept. We provide ideas for making it better, or at least customizable, so that everyone can be happy. I don’t insist upon forcing my ideas upon anyone, I just want the opportunity to play SC in a more balanced fashion through toggle-able options. Blindly supporting SC as perfect as it stands, while loyal, is missing the point entirely.

You must be missing my point, not to mention Hubert's point (Though I can't reliably speak for him).

The beauty of SC is that you don't HAVE to worry about overrunning people. You don't HAVE to worry about hit and runs. It's just a wargame broken down into it's most simplistic state and when I get off work and I'm tired and I want to relax, the last thing I want to worry about is if Moscow is going to get 10 Armies hitting it from 2 hexes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a full supporter of mods and all that, but what I think SC needs right at the moment is a good do-over of the atlantic and all things involved.

[dougman4]

Panzer Lehr, in response to my recommended inclusion of various toggle-able options you so cleverly responded:

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

If you like the game as it is, then my recommendations shouldn’t bother you in the least. Because, my recommendations are TOGGLE-ABLE so you’ll always be able to play it the way it is now. But, please don’t be obstructionist for those of us who desire added features and improvements.

If you want to relax in the bogged battlefield, fine, have at it. But, just because SC is a highly abstracted game doesn’t mean that units can’t behave to some extent like they did in real life. Sounds like what you want is a SC game for WWI though.