Jump to content

Two more things


Recommended Posts

Recently I learned to play TAO2 (my first divisional/regimental experience) and really got into it (man,all those things to take in account for a newbie like me!!).There was one thing I think that could work in SC2 as well:units being attacked that lose must retreat one hex.Ofcourse this is not TAO and a whole army doesn't retreat just because it had some casualties.Heavy beaten armies on the other hand can be forced to retreat,especially if they are attacked more than once in one turn.What about units whose strenght goes to 5 or under that due to combat losses?It could lead to some interesting situations like breakthroughs in a frontline.

I didn't search for this in previous threads so if it was allready discussed...

The other thing is manpower.If this is calculated in Mpp's:discussion closed.If not,there should be a limit or a difference.Russia is bigger than Germany and thus could mobilize a lot more young men into the service.I know this is all closely related to the Mpp flow so maybe this will only lead to making it all more difficult.I don't know.Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah-I'd say that would be a good thing, as I've ofton been stuck with moscow, stalingrad and other cities in my clutches, as well as on an extended front-line finding the enemy replacing trooops just enough so that I couldn't destroy them the next turn. Retreat would be a great option to have.

As for the man-power, also, what about the quality of the men? The German army had considerably better trained soldiers than everyone else, especially at the beginning-perhaps something should be done to the experience levels, or introduce an entirely new factor-training levels. Players could invest in better training facilities and so on to produce a better soldier.

Just a thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems it was easier to post the relevant section:


... So, how do we make our Grey, Red, Green units into Germans, Soviets and US? Luckily, in a post he wrote, JerseyJohn brought it all together for me. Please remember that this is for SC (not SCII) and experience is the only easy way to reflect leadership and training.


Initial German (and Finnish) units would have two (2) experience bars.

Initial Italian ground units get no experience bars. Naval units get one (1) experience bar.

Initial French units get no experience bars.

UK initial units (and half of the Greek and Spanish units) would have one (1) experience bar. Naval ships however, would have two (2).

Initial US ground units gets no experience bars. One of the naval units and both air (see below) gets one (1) experience bar.

Initial Russian units get no experience bars and none of them are Army (M) or Corp (M) (see below).

Newly raised units, regardless of nation or type, would be created with no experience bars.

This handles the differences between the nations regarding the training and leadership. Bear in mind, that our '39 unit is identical to our '44 unit, which was not true historically.

The above can be handled thru the Campaign Editor.


Action Points

Army unit action points should be two (2).

Corp unit action points should be three (3).

New units Army (M) and Corp (M) would use the current action points. These are your motorized units.

Only UK and US can build Army (M) or Corp (M). Russians can only build Corp (M).

This requires you to accept that everyone is motorized or use a "house rule" where you voluntarily restrict the movement of the Armies and Corps, if not motorized.

The action points of the Army and Corp units are too high. They are more along the lines of what a motorized Army or Corp would have. The Germans, Italians and early Soviets were not motorized. They really should be one and a half (1.5) and three (3), but you work with what you've got.



Italy should have an 5 point air, in which case it should have one (1) bar of experience. However, I believe the Italian economy is too strong, and this just gives them more. If they had the resource restriction, then they should get this unit.

US needs to have more initial units or a change in the initial mix. There should be one air and one bomber unit. Why? All of the above is based on a Corp being roughly the same size in combat power. Exception is the US. Its Corp is really an SC Army, and its Division is really an SC Corp. US units relative to the other nations had more combat power. And they had more non-divisional combat and combat support units attached to them. Initial US setup should have one air unit and one bomber unit. US Army Air Corp got the cream of the recruits.

The Russian Army formation is really an SC Corp.


Now solving the Manpower issue becomes much easier, for without a standard unit across all the various years, it was impossible to design a workable solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of using experience, which stays the same over time and essentially imparts a 'national modifier' on certain country's troops, you might change the way Readiness works. Something like I suggested over in my SC2 thread may help.

The relevant bits:

* A cumulative loss of readiness for units. Units lose readiness as they move and, especially, fight. If a unit fights continuously, it's readiness can drop to near zero over time. It can recover readiness by resting. And having an HQ nearby allows faster recovery. For movement, readiness points are lost corresponding to double the movement cost of the ground you move over. So if you move onto a mountain hex, you lose 4 readiness percentage points. Move over 2 open hexes, lose 4 points. Attack a hex and lose 6x movement cost of that hex. Units naturally recover 4 points per turn. If a unit does nothing but rest in a turn, its readiness increases by -say- 16 points (4 times normal recovery rate). All this can help simulate troop exhaustion and wear and tear on equipment. Note that the math in this example may or may not work, depending on the hex size for the game, but I think it will add an interesting wrinkle to impede the almost continuous attacking and movement in the game. Units will still have a maximum readiness rating (determined by their distance from friendly supply), but don't get an automatic maxing of their readiness value simply because an HQ moves nearby.

* Defenders engaged in combat lose readiness at three times the movement cost of the ground they sit on (half that of attackers).

* In addition, reinforcements bring readiness levels back up by the same percentage as strength. So reinforcing a strength 5 unit up to its max of 10 also reduces readiness gap by 50% (e.g. A unit with current readiness of 37% and max readiness of 81% (difference of 44) would result in a readiness of 59% (37+22) when reinforced. Reinforcing from strength 9 up to 11 would increase readiness by 18% (2/11) to 45% (37+8)).

* If a unit's supply drops below its readiness value, have readiness drop by half the difference between supply and readiness each turn. So if readiness is at 80% one turn, but the unit is nearly cut-off and its supply drops to 20%, readiness will drop to 50% (80-((80-20)/2)) the next turn, and then to 35%, etc. Until the unit's supply is equal to or greater than readiness.

* In conjunction with the readiness idea mentioned above, have new units start out at readiness levels of 40%. While you can fight with them, they won't be very effective. Letting them rest a few turns before commiting them to battle will bring their readiness up to more reasonable levels. This can help simulate the time it takes to train new recruits, but still allow ad-hoc units to be assembled and thrown directly into the fray if a desperate situation warrants it. Armored units could start out at 25% levels due to the longer training times.

Setting readiness at very low levels can even help simulate certain devastating attacks like Pearl Harbor. If the US fleet at Pearl enters the game after the Japanese DoW at extremely low readiness levels (-say- only 5~15%), this can help simulate how completely unprepared they were and could give reasonably historic losses without handicapping those units for much of the game WRT experience.

For manpower limits, a couple of folks have recently mentioned counting up the number of hexes a country owns and using that to limit the number of units, which I think may be useful. While this isn't a resource hunting game, your units (and people producing MPPs) still need to be fed. Before the invasion of Poland, Germany owns 66 open hexes and collects 120 MPPs while supporting 21 units. If a hex supports 2 MPPs or 2 units, you could feed your military (which would naturally get priority), but would be short 9 MPPs because of the size of the military. This would encourage expansion (to get more open hexes) and could also encourage setting limits on the size of your military to maximize MPP production. Using something like this, expansion would be absolutely critical for a land-starved Japan. And the German invasion of western Russia wouldn't just be about collecting MPPs and destroying the Russian army, but also about stealing food production.

But of course those ideas are probably more oriented for a significantly altered game, not retrofitting the current SC. FWIW.

- Chris

[ March 01, 2003, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...