Too big cost difference between building and reinforcing.

[zappsweden]

If a unit cost 200 to build it should not cost only 100 to reinforce. The gap is too big. It makes the enemy being destroyed take DOUBLE MPP casualties and the game becomes a game of destroying units=wins.

It becomes obvious in air vs navy wars when the air units concentrate on a single fleet hence inflicts DOUBLE MPP losses when it is destroyed. Navy units cannot do the same against air, so they suffer much because of this system.

Instead of 100% more cost for building a units it should be about 50-70% in my opinion.

[jon_j_rambo]

zappsweden --- Interesting & accurate "take", rack 'em! The current method does dictate game play. Eliminating one-unit is more important than equal damaging many units.

I'm sure there are plenty of historical experts that can help with this question.

Rambo >>> Impressed by this comment by Zap-Sweden

[JerseyJohn]

One of the things I liked in Clash of Steel was the penalty in rebuilding units that were lost while surrounded by enemy troops; all surrounding hexes enemy controled.

This made sense as a unit destroyed in line would represent the decimation to zero of that unit's ability to fight. However, the core elements would have been withdrawn to a rear area where surviving officers and enlisted men, which would normally be the majority of the unit, would help build a new unit from the reinforcement pool. Additionally all it's support units (motor pool, hq staff, medical, supply, field kitchens, etc.) would have remained in tact making the reconstruction a matter of fleshing out the existing cadre.

Replacing a unit lost while surrounded would have been a different matter as all it's officers, men, and equipment were lost and no cadre remained in existence to train new recruits.

Building new units should be more expensive than reinforcing old ones, but as the units in this game have no true individuality there's no way of reflecting this. Given that, I'd prefer the current system over a strictly point cost method. If we see it as buying combat points we'll end up with severely decimated units all over the place being used unrealistically as sacrificial lambs. The game would move much more slowly and with a sort of Alamo mentality.

[ December 26, 2002, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[zappsweden]

JerseyJohn, my proposal is biased to the "double cost system" since i proposed that a reinforcement of 100MPP should cost about 150-170 MPP to build new compared to the 200MPP of the current system.

Another intersting thing is that you can have different costs for different force types.

example:

UNIT,,,NEW UNIT EXTRA COST

Air units 80%

Ground units 90%

Navy Units 65%

note: in current system all units cost 100% more to build new than to reinforce.

[ December 26, 2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

JerseyJohn, my proposal is biased to the "double cost system" since i proposed that a reinforcement of 100MPP should cost about 150-170 MPP to build new compared to the 200MPP of the current system.

---

JJ -- Okay, I agree as the exact % is only an estimation and making it 50% serves the same purpose.

---

Another intersting thing is that you can have different costs for different force types.

example:

UNIT,,,NEW UNIT EXTRA COST

Air units 80%

Ground units 90%

Navy Units 65%

note: in current system all units cost 100% more to build new than to reinforce. --

JJ -- Very good concept. I agree here as well.

Great thread. I hope Hubert adds input and discloses some information regarding his formuala on replacing casualties/naval repair vs forming new units.

[ December 26, 2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Hueristic]

I agree with the theory but not with the figures. Land based should cost the least to reinforce. Unfortunately Men are the cheapest resource to replace and land units unless destroyed hold onto thier harware if nothing else than to deny the ememy that those same supplies, Where as most air units Crash and burn and collecting all those little pieces and putting back together is harder than reasembling Humpty Dumpty . As for lost naval units Well They sink mostly or need some serious attention to get them back to dock for refit and since the game does not slow down Damaged naval units I'm assumeing it consideres those too Beat down to fight"Unrepairable" and hence lost.

[JerseyJohn]

Hueristic

I believe you're correct. The percentages seemed a little backwards to me as well but I didn't get into it as I assumed there was something I hadn't noticed. He's got a good concept in any case.

The Yorktown fought at the Coral Sea, was damaged, put in to Pearl for a quick fix and was sent immediately to join the fleet defending Midway. Undoubtedly the quick fix hadn't been sufficient to get her through another battle.

The heavy cruiser Makuma. The epitome of a severely battle-damaged vessel, this ship limped away from Midway looking like the symbol of defeat. She was fully repaired and later joined Japan's powerful main battle fleet at Leyte Gulf.

[ December 26, 2002, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[zappsweden]

previously proposed:

UNIT,,,NEW UNIT EXTRA COST

Air units 80%

Ground units 90%

Navy Units 65%

The most important thing is that NO unit should have the big 100% gap and that the air units cannot exploit the gaps because of their "huge range focus on a single target". I could settle for all being 70%, because it would surely be better than now anyway.

the effects of losing units in the current system is.

1. The big cost of rebuilding the unit

2. the big experience increase that all the attackers will get (especially the 0.3 destroying bonus)

3. the benefit, that some of the attackers can attack wounded units hence getting easier fights.

If the only disadvantage with losing units was the rebuilding cost i could accept it. However, combined with numbers 2 and 3 the cost is simply too great.

[ December 27, 2002, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[jon_j_rambo]

zappsweden --- Hey Zap, I know what you're talking about. These guys don't understand who owns the sky, owns the front.

We only had a scrimmage testing beta 1.06, so why don't we play?

You're the heavyweight from Europe, I'm the champ of the United States.

Let me know, best regards,

Rambo >>>>> Yes, I do have a slow connection.

[zappsweden]

Hueristic. I just wanted to point out that a high gap means that a unit is EASY repaired.

In the previer proposal where i had ground units as the highest percentage simply meant that they were the troops that have the lowest replacing costs.

[ December 28, 2002, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

Rambo.

I am back in my home City on December 29 at 17:30 GMT. That is on Early Sunday for you, not sure the exact hour.

If u want to fight me, let me know. I would gladely have Axis in our first game since i have had allies too much recently.

we could have best of 5 games, because i really want to be the undisputed best player

[jon_j_rambo]

Zappsweden --- It's ~12:00 Noon, Saturday right now. When do you want to play? Maybe we should use the "Time" shown on the Forum (add 2-hours).

It's Saturday 2:15 pm

[zappsweden]

ok. Sunday at 12:30 (forum time).

Give me a msg on the opponent forum tomorrow on that time.

[ December 28, 2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Perfect, that's 10:30 am my time on Sunday! What side do you want?

[zappsweden]

i would like axis. Standard rules. Best of 3 atleist, maybe best of 5.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

Hueristic. I just wanted to point out that a high gap means that a unit is EASY repaired.

In the previer proposal where i had ground units as the highest percentage simply meant that they were the troops that have the lowest replacing costs.

Duh guess i'm just stupid then. Hmm go reread ur post.

[J Wagner]

Keep in mind that there is a balance as to how much a unit costs, and how much it costs to replace lost strength points, based on the current MPP's that each country receives. France for example, usually acquires 115 MPPs per turn. If you suddenly increased the cost to reinforce units, France will be at a greater disadvantage than is now currently in the game. Germany too, may not build up the war machine needed for the invasion of Russia, if the costs for reinforcing the units that went to war in Poland, France, ect. is so high. If you counter this by increasing the initial MPPs as well as increasing the amount of MPP plunder, then you haven't accomplished anything but the aesthetic feel that you are paying more, when in fact you are not...I think for game balance and playability, the current system is just fine..

[JerseyJohn]

J Wagner

Seems odd to see someone posting something regarding the real thread. Hope your example is followed by others and the forums turn into forums again instead of empty hallways where unsupervised children chase each other down the hallways listening to the echos of their own footsteps.

In general agreement with your posting. I think the best system for distinguishing between units depleted out of existence in the battle line as opposed to units that were just plain lost is the one used in Clash of Steel, which is totally different from what we have here. In this instance I prefer the COS concept but as we are working with this one I think, in the final analysis, it should remain as is.

[ December 28, 2002, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Compassion]

J Wagner

Not only is the current system balanced, but accurate, I think. Wheather someone decides to pull a unit back and slowly reinforce to leaven reinforcements with vets or feverishly plugs holes with whatever green troops the repple depple has at hand, it is far easier to route these replacements to where they are supposed to go if a fully developed logistical corps is in place to cut orders, control roads, and feed troops. THese are the intangibles that you have to buy when you buy a full blown unit as opposed to reinforcing even the most decimated one. THat officer, quartermaster, and intelligence core is still available and ready to return to action as soon as their OOB is brought up to strength. When buying a new unit, you are also paying for these intangibles that have little to do with the game's listed combat strengths but whom without the battle cannot be fought.

edit: Because the Raiders dominated today, and I've been celebrating since the first quarter... Homefield throughout... THe Road to San Diego goes through the Black Hole (with apologies to our non US friends who are wondering what I'm on about).

Commitment to Excellence

[ December 28, 2002, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Compassion ]