Limit spawning of new units next to contested cities!

[dougman4]

When there is an enemy unit adjacent to a city hex, that city should not be allow to spawn unlimited units. There should be a decreasing spawning algorithm in place as more enemy units are adjacent to the city. For example:

1 enemy unit adjacent limits spawning to 2 units

2 enemy units adjacent limits spawning to 1 unit

3 enemy units adjacent limits spawning to 0 units

Otherwise, there is no consideration given to the siege effect of encirclement and the game bogs down to be a ponderous quagmire where a few lone cities become impervious to attack.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Look upon it as the conscription of civs that are thrown against the invaders.

[pzgndr]

How about no unit builds adjacent to an enemy unit. This would be a simple change consistent with most other games and could be considered.

[Jeff Heidman]

Good idea, Bill.

Jeff

[Desert Dave]

And I second that emotion.

It would also force strategists to keep a mobile reserve to immediately bolster the threatened front line troops. You would have to plan ahead and try to estimate where the opponent MIGHT launch that counter-offensive.

If someone tries to get by with merely the one thin red line, then they would pay the price in terms of a steady retreat, and losing one critical hex could mean losing a city or resource icon.

Let's do it! :cool:

[RicKhan]

How about no unit builds adjacent to an enemy unit. This would be a simple change consistent with most other games and could be considered.

Even though other games may have this type of rule, SC is not those other games.

Have u tried this in some sort of personnel playtest to see if it will work as you believe it will? or just an untested idea?

:confused:

I would not like to implement this kind of change, to SC. :cool:

[pzgndr]

Have u tried this in some sort of personnel playtest to see if it will work as you believe it will? or just an untested idea?

No, it's just a suggestion. In general, new units do not magically appear adjacent to the enemy. Units are mobilized and trained at some distant location and then deployed to the front. Assuming your city is not isolated, you can always op move reserves adjacent to the enemy and build your new unit farther back. As IE pointed out, this encourages use of reserves.

If SC had armor ZOC, I'd clarify my suggestion by saying no builds or op moves in an enemy ZOC. That would be better. But that too is just another crazy half-baked untested idea. Hooah.

[I/O Error]

The problem with the idea of "no buyings units next to enemy units" is that the scale in SC is HUGE. Each hex is hundreds upon hundreds of miles! In my opinion, it would actually make the game more unrealistic if they put in this rule.

Now, if this was a toggle option, that's another matter entirely. People can play their individual games as they like. Hell, I'd love to try that a few times, at least. Just don't force it on all of us.

[dougman4]

I am a firm believer in making as many of the rules options that can be toggled on or off. This would be a great choice for that. You could even have several increasingly strict choices to select from.

But clearly, it is unrealistic for an almost completely encircled city to be able to spawn new units. They must come from elsewhere.

[ October 17, 2002, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

[dougman4]

After devoting another weekend to SC, I’m more adamant than ever that there must be a rule option that can be toggled so those sane among us, who are tired of beating our heads against the wall due the quagmired battlefield, don’t have the insult of seeing units magically spawned with impunity at contested cities. Really!!

[RicKhan]

It is all a matter of perception.

:eek:

Many see units coming directly from the city in question.

I also see it that way and more. It can be seen as reserves being brought up to help anchor the defense, extend the line of battle, contribute to a rear guard action, and any other historic examples i can reflect on as i play. It can also be the spending of MMP's to create units out of virtual air.

This element of the game has never been an issue for me. It is just how u view the forces that come into being during your opponents turn and mar your well laid plans.

I find myself committing as many military assets as needed, to completly surround a city, if i don't want it to be helped with MMP's. Or prepare to outflank the city and hope to increase my bag of prey when it is "spawning" units.

The one house rule i came upon in this forum which i personally try and play with, (at this time in SC's development), is building units only within the confines of your major power

Although it could be argued that a limited number of corps should be allowed built outside of any major nation to represent recuitment/volunteers of nationals sympathetic to a cause.

(I do this in solo games). Any other unit should not be allowed this flexiblity.

Have fun playing this game and look forward to updates as they come.

[dougman4]

It might be possible to perceive spawned units at contested cities as “reserves” if they were limited in number. However, they are not, and it is implausible to me that so many armies can magically appear. No city can endlessly produce units, especially when engaged by enemy. This boarders on the farcical.

I’ve begun to think people who don’t see the wisdom in such limitations have played against the AI more than savvy humans. The phenomenon is quite more pronounced with human opposition.

[pzgndr]

It is all a matter of perception.

Yes. Whether units are built adjacent to an enemy unit or are op moved from some distant city is irrelevant. The end result is the same - a brand new unit arrives in the dark of the night to help defend the city. The only difference is that requiring an op move means an increased cost. And the burden of planning ahead by having reserves available in some distant city or suffering a 1-turn delay. This seems reasonable. However, we can have both. Unit builds adjacent to enemy units on/off should be a game option in SC2.

[dougman4]

I applaud the opportunity to have it as an option. Hopefully, not merely as an on-off option but with the ability to choose the amount of spawning with varying numbers of enemy units surrounding a city.

[ev]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

How about no unit builds adjacent to an enemy unit. This would be a simple change consistent with most other games and could be considered.

I like this idea too.

[Henri]

Originally posted by dougman4:

After devoting another weekend to SC, I?m more adamant than ever that there must be a rule option that can be toggled so those sane among us, who are tired of beating our heads against the wall due the quagmired battlefield, don?t have the insult of seeing units magically spawned with impunity at contested cities. Really!!

That's how the Germans felt when they were about to take Moscow and the whole Moscow population came out and began to dig trenches, pick up guns and other defenses...

henri

[dougman4]

It is not REMOTELY how the Germans felt in WWII when attacking Moscow, for Moscow did not spawn

3 Armies

1 Tank Group

1 Air Fleet

every week (i.e. turn) while engaging a German army adjacent to the city.

Nor was Moscow able to reinforce all its surrounding military forces to full strength every week (i.e. turn).

The Germans would have thought that MAGICAL.

And, both features are ABSURD in this game.

The sane among us continue to beg for the insanity to stop, or be given a toggle where we can reduce and/or turn it off.

[Fubarno]

How could Moscow "spawn" one air unit, one tank unit and three armies every week/turn? That would be a huge expenditure of mpp's which are not available. Don't sensationalize the discusion.

Are you referring to the transfer of Siberian armies? This only takes place once. Surrounded cities, other than capitals, can't even produce units, but cities that are not surrounded should be able to produce units next to enemy units, at the SC scale. Remeber, each hex is 50 square miles.

Not to mention, removing the ability to build in and around cities that have adjacent enemies would unbalance the game even more so in favor of the axis. It's hard enough fending off the Teutonic hordes from overrunning mother Russia.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by dougman4:

The Germans would have thought that MAGICAL.

And, both features are ABSURD in this game.

The sane among us continue to beg for the insanity to stop, or be given a toggle where we can reduce and/or turn it off.

It is not only you, but several of us have asked for toggles.

But... in an ABSURD universe... :eek:

Here, dressed to the nines and whistling a fluted silver tune -- comes the MAGIC -- Toggle Man!

Like ol' Johnny Appleseed, he wanders thither & yon, sewing -- little seedling toggles! Here, there, and everywhere!

See the toggles sprout and arise majestically!

And when they reach the exact right size, you can toggle anything you want!

For instance, there is a toggle for the sky: you can order it blue or grey or full of descending Greek gods or rain-clouds!

A toggle for the birds: flick the red toggle and you can have robins singing! The blue one brings Jays yammering jam all over the place!

But... since there are no natural enemies, the toggles flourish and soon are everywhere, like kudzu!

It would take Hercules and Sisyphus and a whole regiment of marines -- just to flick -- the one increasing toggle!

And then! bigger than telephone poles, and bigger yet! As big as towering skyscrapers!

... and, somewhere in there... down in that mass of seething toggle, you can here a lone, plaintive moan...

"what blooming idiot asked for toggles in the first place!" :eek:

[dougman4]

Fubarno,

You criticize unjustly, the last thing I would do is sensationalize the discussion. Frankly, the unbalance in the game is sensational in of itself.

Here’s a perfect example of how you could spawn one air unit, one tank unit and three armies every week/turn. Choose the 1939 campaign as the Germans. Take over Poland, Low Countries, and France. Then wait and do nothing (This game is scintillating isn’t it? Win by doing absolutely nothing!). The US is not in the game, and neither is Russia. It is dozens of turns before either country enters the war, and you earn more than double the MPP’s as England in the meantime and develop advanced research. You will have many thousands of MPPs saved up, even if you spend significantly on research. When Russia and the US finally do get in the war, your research is very far along and your units blow them away. Wait until the turn before US/Russia enter the war to buy units so that you buy your advanced units at the lowest price your industry research has advanced. So, not only can you buy advanced units cheaply, but you have thousands of MPPs with which you could buy the very units I said you could for many turns.

The same thing can happen for Russia, if German concentrates on taking out US or UK and leaves Russia alone.

In fact, situations like this happen more often than not in the games I play.

The game is unbalanced, and other countries should be compelled to enter the war once a country has so many MPPs. Anyone ever heard of a country getting nervous at the huge military buildup of another?

In any case, my German strategy above is a gift to all. Until SC is tweaked, you’ll never lose with Germany again if you employ it.

In any case, limiting spawning of contested cities works against Germany just as much as Russia. If Germany concentrates on Russia, Germany depends on the Magic Spawn feature of SC to keep US/UK bogged down in Western Europe.

[ev]

Originally posted by dougman4:

When there is an enemy unit adjacent to a city hex, that city should not be allow to spawn unlimited units.... Otherwise, there is no consideration given to the siege effect of encirclement and the game bogs down to be a ponderous quagmire where a few lone cities become impervious to attack.

I agree there is a problem. Elsewhere (on reinforcements) I suggested the following idea:

New units should be adquired understrength. Perhapps at a strength of 4, and, reinforced in subsquent tunrs.

If a player wants to defend a city with raw untrainned recruits, those units should have a substantially lower strength. If you want units to be up to strength, it should take you some time to reinforce them.

In 41-42 the Soviets threw waves of untrainned troops to the battlefront. These were not fully trained "green" units. Their battleworthyness was substantially below those of "green" fully trained German, British, or American units.

The game could simulate this by allowing all units to be purchased understrength, say at strength 4. On subsquent turns they could be brought to strength through reinforcements, they were not destroyed by the opposing player before hand.

Needless to say, this will make the Russian Battlefield very bloody. ...and, so it was.

Players will be faced with the constant dilema of either moving forward their weak units to close a gap in the line, or waiting for their units to be up to strength. A dilema faced by all generals since Anibal attacked the Romans.

This will also make lines a lot more vulnerable to breakthrough, the eastern front will be more fluid, and, I hope it will make the game even more exciting.

In the topic on "Reinforcements" I also suggested that there should be a limit on how many reinforcement points a unit could receive in a single turn. Please check my note on that topic.

[Brian Rock]

Another possibility is to make reinforcements that appear next to an enemy cost twice as many MPPs.

I have no idea whether this would be better, worse, or make no difference whatsover, but I'm interested in other players' thoughts.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by dougman4:

Fubarno,

You will have many thousands of MPPs saved up, even if you spend significantly on research. When Russia and the US finally do get in the war, your research is very far along and your units blow them away. Wait until the turn before US/Russia enter the war to buy units so that you buy your advanced units at the lowest price your industry research has advanced. So, not only can you buy advanced units cheaply, but you have thousands of MPPs with which you could buy the very units I said you could for many turns.

More to the point, by keeping all those MPPs in

reserve, it allows you to have a quick-response

contingency plan towards any enemy moves. Voila!

Instant Kriegsmarine in one turn! 25,000 tanks

pumped out in two weeks to build 50 Panzer

Divisions (whatever that is in terms of armies-

10?).

We really need delayed production-I always liked

how in CoS you eagerly awaited the arrival of

certain very vital units. That is missing here

and allows the above nonsense to work just fine,

in direct contradiction to common sense.

John DiFool

[dougman4]

Ev/Brain Rock/John DiFool - BEAUTIFULLY SAID!

[ev]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

We really need delayed production...

[/QB]

I agree.

But please note my suggestion on how to delay production: We can buy all units understrength (at say strength four or five) and be forced to wait till the next turn to reinforce it.

Also I would limit how many reinforcements you can add to a given unit. e.g. 5 points to a Corps per turn, but only 3 to a Tank Group and 1 to a Battleship. Thus it would take a lot more time to bring to full strength certain types of units.

... and also it would take more time to bring to full strength high tech units.

This system would allow a player to chose between using understrength units immediately or else waiting until they are brought to full strength,