Minotaur Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 I read about this problem in a lot of topic and agree that it is a problem... In fact it seems to be the root of a lot of problems or ahistorical things we see: - My 3 hexes wide 'Barbarossa' ... - Italy way too powerful... - Putting Corps on every Russian swamps to prevent Partisan creation... - Being able to defend France and make Russians fall back at the same time (!?!)... - Having too much of a specific unit (Air Fleet anyone )... - Etc... Ok... We agree it's a problem... Now lets put some solutions here... Here are some possible solutions I heard about: 1) The more units of the same type you buy, the more the next one will cost you... 2) You can only buy 'x' number of a specific unit... No more than that number... When you reach the maximum, the only way to buy another one is when one is destroyed... This solution works a lot like most Boardgames... And it has the advantage of putting differents maximums for different units... For example... Maximum 5 Air Fleets, 20 Corps, 8 Tanks, 10 Battleships, etc... 3) You take one of the two solution above, but you add this: The more territory you have, the more you can buy units... Simulating you have more population (Conquered) to do your MMPs so your home population (Conqueror) may be free to fight the war... What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 I think everyone's already as tired of reading my opinions as I am of writing them, so I'll cede the floor for now. I want to say first that I'm glad you started this forum. The various ideas floating around are, as usual, greatly in need of organization and evaluation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 I like the increasing cost method. 1st Corps costs 125, 10th costs 145, 20th costs 165, (increments of 2) 1st plane is 400, 5th plane would be 500, 10th plane 600 (increments of 20) The actual numbers could be determined later. Would lead to more combined arms tactics. I could also deal with limited numbers of each type, but if someone wants that 10th plane at 600, let them have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 GOOD TOPIC Lets see what happened when Germany wanted more units from 1944 and on. 1) Made Divisions smaller, which decreased firepower. Panzer Div. went from 350 tanks to 100 tanks and Tankdestroyers. Infantry divisions went from 10 battalions too 7 bat. (three regiments of three battalions, down to two reg. of three bat. + one eng bat.) 2) The draft went from 18 thru 45, to 14 thru 59. The degree of human quality went down. 3) Pilot training when from 500 hours to 50 hours. In all cases if you wanted more from less, you got less. So if we set a limit for Germany, she would get all the units to the limit set for the same price, and then above that she would get decreased units strenghts above the limit set. I just got done reading a great Book about Panzers, and Germany had 38 PZ Div and 27 PG Div. 65 Armored Divisions. 21 were destroyed and rebuilt making her real total 86 Div. That's alot of Armored Div's. Almost 20% of all divisions. 1 of 5. What persentage do we have in SC? I would also like the be able to decrease the unit strenght at any time during the game. e.g. placing a corps in a city at 10 st. pts, then decreasing it to 5 pts, and placing those pts to other units. [ March 05, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Good subject, in looking at the present game the idea of spending more for the 10 air fleet just won't work. Could be a nice adjustment for SC2 but for the present only a limiting force pool will work with todays game. Without me saying that its needed or not, what are your thoughts on the size of the different force pools? Remember by 1944 every country was scraping the bottom for additional manpower. You also make a good point that the size of your force pool will go up as your take more teritory (Germany had whole SS divisons made up of French, Scandinavian, Russian people) while the brits were using troops from India ect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay_H Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Both possibilities seem very promising to me, that one with higher mpp costs for every new land, air etc unit and the limitation rule. Yep Jersey, the pros and contras for this have already been debated in depth. I think it might bring up the claim for new units in different scale. Why we have armies and corps, but no air corps or 'Fliegerkorps' , we got tank groups which i understand as army-sized formation, and should have tank corps as well. A tank army might consist of 2 or 3 tk corps or a tk and some infantry. You can field a limited number of both, and have 2 or 3 tank corps instead of a tk army. Same with the airforce: So airfleet building could be limited to lets say 5, or 4 AF and 2 aircorps, 3 AF and 4 air corps and so on. The units of lesser scale normally would be reduced in attack and defending value. Working with armies and corps in the current game either when im not mistaken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay_H Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Iron Ranger: (Germany had whole SS divisons made up of French, Scandinavian, Russian people) while the brits were using troops from India ect... Yep, where are the commonwealth troops in SC. About foreign volunteers fighting against bolshevism i also opened a topic some 50 pages ago! Ok, you can name your elite formations smth like VIKING Tank Group or NORDLAND, but its still missing right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpitfireMarkX Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 How about We dont do any of this. About Italy bein way to powerful, they had more arms then this game shows, there Armys just blew. You say limit to like 20 corps, there was like that many in one German Army group. A limited Manpower would turn me away. It would suck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Agreed with Brad. It isn't that Italy is too powerful, the difference is none of us handle the place as poorly as Mussolini and his strutting political hacks did. His generals and admirals always offered excellent advice and he made decisions that were patently absurd -- like invading mountainous Greece in the rainy season and after he'd withdrawn thousands of troops from Albania! [ March 05, 2003, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 - My 3 hexes wide 'Barbarossa' Maybe were looking at this in the wrong way. While a limited force pool is a good idea, it might limit the stratgys players use and deny them the fun if trying "what if" games. I think we need to look more at the political side if we wish to make the game more historical. Think on it - when was the last time someone attacked Russia in the late spring of 41, normally in this game its in the fall of 41, after all the minors have been taken, this is why we have a 3 and 4 hex deep attack in the first turn. So some house rules would be in order - anyone can post some, but here is my list. 1) If Germany attacks Sweden thier Finish brothers realise that maybe Germany isn't such a great protector and joins Sweden to defend the frozen north. In game Germany DOWs Sweden - she must do the same to Finland (unless she has already joined, inwhich case - no big deal) 2) If Germany attacks Spain, facist's everywhere realise that Hitler is not interested in a "new world order" but in personal conquest for Germany. In game if Germany DOWs Spain - she must do the same to VF and Iraq on he following (!) turn. 3)If the western allies attack the LC Italy figures to take a bite out of France while she's diverted up north. In game if allies DOW LC - they must do the same to Italy. (this is already a problem as the "Double Gambit" - but here you'll need to do it on the same turn so you'll really have to think on the consiquences) 4) Last and most important - USA stay's the same in readness, affected by DOW in eroupe. But Russia is now different - Germany MUST DOW by the end of July 41 (or before). If not the game ends with Hitler being assinated in Augest by his Facist brothers for not folowing through with his promiss of "Living space in the east" (Libistromin?). Russia set to "Newtral" in the start menu. With this rule you'll quit seeing the super punch that is now the standard form of attack in the first turn. Players will not longer buy 7-10 expensive air fleets and not worry about the ground units for Russia - they'll have to start buying them ASAP in 40 to have enough in 41 for the attack. Just my 5 cents worth - sorry if some of the spelling is off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 Ok... Some clarification... First, I hope idea will be for a future SC patch... We can start another topic for SC2... Second, I don't think creating new unit size can't be done because we must work with the map we have and keep in mind it's scale... About the first idea, the Increasing Cost, we could do 2 things: - 1st cost ?, second cost ?+10, third cost ?+20, etc... - A certain number of units cost ?... After that, the next cost double... After that, x4... About the second idea, since I'm not an historian I can only guess or use a boardgame as a starting point... Some research need to be done here... About the third, I think the more you conquer, the more you can build... Lets say 1 Corps at normal cost for each city you control and 1 Army at normal cost for each country you control... JerseyJohn - You indeed put a lot of work these days... JayJay_H - Indeed the Commonwealth troops are missing... We may include them in the UK Pool or add them periodically like the Siberian troops... They could come from Canada, Suez or the pretty red arrows ... Brad Tennant - I know that every ideas cannot please everyone... I think JerseyJohn know a lot about it too... But the Unlimited Manpool is too ahistorical to be discarded... You could not create 20 Air Fleets or 100 Armies at that time, so you shouldn't be able to do so in this game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 I've spent quite abit of time working on this, along with trying to make the units more reflective of the way they were historically. I will post my ideas later on, when I am completed. I am glad this has been brought up again. But before we get too carried away, there should be a topic for the three (3) different areas this covers... * Using the existing tools or house rules within SC so we can game it now. * Suggestions that involve changes to SC. * Suggestions that go beyond what SC is now (ie SC II, SC Future, whatever you want to call it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage: * Suggestions that involve changes to SC. That what's I had in mind when I created this topic... House rules can be possible when playing with 2 willing peoples... But when playing against the AI... Although it's not the AI that buy 10 Air Fleets ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Minotaur Terrific forum and threads. Each of these forums lately seem to be honing in on the hidden flaw that's causing the air/manpower situation to go out of whack. This forum is very valuable because you've cut past the effects and are getting to the cause. Glad you emphasize those figures so often, the 20 airfleets and 100 armies etc., along with the fact that the airfleets are super charged and too effective, even at their more extreme ranges. As for the huge number of armies and corps -- the Hitler Youth would have been going directly into the army from nursery school. Something is out of whack and you're right, reducing the number of units isn't the cure, only a quick fix. Also, as you say, it's a little difficult agreeing on house rules with the AI. Hopefully, if Hubert follows your excellent advice on expanding the scenario editor, it will have almost the same effect. But I think we're all narrowing things down and getting closer to that elusive game flaw. I just read the first entries of Arby's new Forum and it looks like he's really on to something. It will be interesting to see what Shaka's working on. Shaka Looking forward to that material you'll be posting. Arby's forum has two long and very informative postings on perceived flaws in the combat/supply/experience formulas the game is using. He left off saying he'll post more on this later. You guys are more analytical than myself and most others and hopefully, if its a flaw in the calculations someone will catch it, and Arby may already have identified it. If it's something Hubert can fix with a patch there will be a ripple effect, correcting the combat results in the game. When that happens we'll be posting on more solid ground. With more reliable and realistic combat results we can work on balancing the different unit types in proportion to one another. So I'd say things are looking up. Iron Ranger Great insights into things that should happen when Germany follows a mad dog approach to conquering it's neighbors. Historically I doubt Germany would have gained anything at all by conquering Sweden -- it was already receiving it's iron ore and using it to obtain otherwise embargoed imports like American truck parts! As for Switzerland, few thieves shoot their fence! Spain -- as you say, it would the change in policy would have been too blatant for even him and Goebles to doubletalk their way out of. Sure, they might have been able to take Gibraltar but their lines of communication in Iberia would never have been secure. Hitler knew this and their bits and pieces of conversations where he alludes to these things. After their Summer 1940 railway car meeting Der Fuhrer was definitely livid with Franco and Spain's continued neutrality. He would definitely have invaded if he thought it was an answer, but he knew it wasn't. Spain conquered by the Axis should be riddled with partisans. Politically a German invasion of Vichy would also have been ludicrous. It would have been as idiotic as Napoleon's invasion of his Spanish Ally a century and a half earlier. Vichy wasn't actually in the Axis, but it's collaboration was worth far more than either it's conquest or membership. What gets me is the way all these invasions have come to be considered great game tactics. I don't blame the players who do it, they're only mastering the game. The fault lies in some of the basic game mechanics which need to be fixed. We're all identifying a lot of the problems. They aren't trivial or things that should be ignored, they're things that should be fixed and the result will be a much better and more historically responsible game. [ March 05, 2003, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpitfireMarkX Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 In the game it says an army is 100,000, multiply that by 100, 10 million men, not too sure on this but Germany HAD that, so it is not that Ahistorical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Brad Yes, I had an old book from 1943 warning Americans that Hitler's Europe still had 14,500,000 men in Axis uniforms. The figure isn't absurd. But how many of them were reliable frontline troops and how many were second and third string security/static forces? How many of them were one armed or one legged verterans never dicharged but given rear area duties? And how many of them were questionable volunteers from occupied countries strutting bravely in rear areas but ready to bolt at the first word that the Russians were drawing near? By the Normandy Invasion, in addition to recruiting underage Hitler Youth, Germany was also organizing units in France by age, ailment and nationality. There were Russian prisoners, regiments where all the men had stomach problems -- putting men with similar ailments together made it easier for doctors to deal with them. Regiments full of long in the tooth World War One veterans, regiments full of political primadonas, etc.. In the June 1944 bomb attempt the main plotter, Colonel Claus von Staufenberg, was missing an arm and an eye! One unit was even made up entirely of generals! These were long standing nazis who'd been given very high political ranks in the glory days. Nobody thought they'd ever have to serve in combat roles; the SS was particularly fond of doing this. Now they were needed to carry rifles, which posed a dilemma: what to do with these unqualified overage political hacks? They couldn't be placed in command of anything (though in earlier centuries it wouldn't have been thought too absurd) and they couldn't take orders from battle veterans who were only segeants or even mere captains, majors and colonels! So they were all put in the same ridiculous unit. Fanatical Nazis in peace and victory, they didn't last very long at the front. Nor did many of them choose military martyrdom. They surrendered pretty much en masse east of the Rhine. An ecstatic GI went around telling everyone how they'd just bagged a couple of hundred generals and the war would be over in matter of days. I had a similar incident at Lackland AFB. Not realizing some foreign enlisted men wore stars and seeing a few dozen of them walking around wearing the sunglasses they seemed to love, I drew the obvious conclusion and told my friends I'd just passed forty army generals! To make matters worse I'd been saluting them like the village idiot and wondering why they all got such good laughs saluting back. Another time, at the Alamo, I heard some guys in foreign uniforms speaking with an accent, saw WG and asked if they were West German , you know, G as in Deutsch! More hearty laughs from my Welsh Guard friends. With incidents like those it's a wonder they didn't assign me to an Inteligence outfit. BTW, those incidents happened 34 years ago in '69. If this were 1944 Germany I'd no doubt be back in uniform and an NCO. Not as old as many, by early '45 I'd have been considered a mere youth. I'd be in the stomach ailment unit and probably in a squad where everyone also had leg problems. Willing or not to die for my country, traipsing around in the mud and snow would more likely have done me in before combat. [ March 06, 2003, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 JerseyJohn - You are quite right... And you didn't talk about men in the U-Boot branch... Surface ships... Troop that you must left behind to garrison and 'pacify' a newly acquired objectives... Men that was on shore leaves because they fights for months... The wounded that are still soldiers but not available... Should I go on? ... About Arty discovery... I think we should hold the press... Because if the 'Combat Algorithms' is that flawed, we need a new one and most idea will go down the drain because they all assumed we keep the initial formulas... We only though about tweaking it, but now it's more like we scrap & build a new one... That's a huge step... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Minotaur Exactly. If it's as flawed as he says, Hubert has some real patching to do. We've both been doing a lot of posting lately. It's fun but a lull in the action will get rid of some of our writer's cramp. Hopefully, while he's doing it he'll also expand the scenario editor. I'm glad the problem was found now instead of further down the road when it might be more difficult to go back and deal with it. [ March 06, 2003, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Brad Going back to one of your earlier postings about how limited manpower would be a turnoff. I'm against hard and fast rules of this kind as well. But it's also a part of reality and should be taken into account. Maybe Bill Macon's suggestion that each country be allowed a number of large units proportionate to it's population at the normal price, then each additional one increases sharply might be an answer (with a similar system for airfleets and naval units). As the war went on Germany kept the same number of formations as it had earlier, even building a second 6th Army after Stalingrad, but they were always becoming smaller. Before the end he was in his moving armies around on a map that had only a few thousand men, including Panzer Armies without tanks. In game terms I'd like to find a solution, but nothing so radical as to make the game unenjoyable. As an interim solution, making this matter a scenario editor option with unlimited as the default setting works best for me. It would also give players of different preferances more freedom to set up the sort of game they enjoy. Forum linked below: link to Player Defined Unit Limits in the Scenario Editor [ March 06, 2003, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewT Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 You don't need manpower units or escalating expenses for new units. All you need to do is charge maintenance for existing units; the bigger the army the more it costs. The problem fixes itself. Something like 1/corps, 2/army or cruiser, 3/battleship, HQ or airunit would be a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 The ideas discussed on the other thread about Player Defined Unit Limits offer a good solution to the manpower problem. Either we track manpower resources, or accept some sort of force pool limits as a reasonable abstraction. Force pool limits and increased reinforcement costs should resolve the unlimited manpower problem. For SC2, having a campaign editor where players can define historic force pool limits by unit type would be useful. Additionally, an on/off game option to permit unit builds in excess of limits but at increased cost would provide some flexibility for what-ifs. Alternatively, players could define no limits and essentially keep the game we have now. This should satisfy just about everyone. Regarding maintenance costs, these are already included in reinforcement costs but currently do not include a increase in per-factor cost for each tech level advance. You do see a 10% increase in construction cost, but that's for the 10% strength increase and not the cost per factor. This should get fixed in SC2 to make maintenance of high tech units more expensive. As pointed out, unit strength and quality tended to decrease throughout WWII for all armies, not just Germany's. I'd prefer to see maximum unit strength kept at 10 throughout, and apply the 10% cost increase per tech level to both the construction and reinforcement costs. And, allow units to be built at strength 2-5 as cadres, to be reinforced over time or to be used as low strength garrison forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 I had no idea the game designer was part of this forum. So, firstly, THANK YOU. I have loved this game from the first time I tried the demo; and still can spend hours bashing the hell out of the British and Russians (though it still pains me to occupy the USA). After reading this thread, what leaps out at me is the (very realistic) notion that once a country's skilled workers were drafted into the army, their production was affected. Albert Speer had a hell of a time trying to keep German industry operating when the Army was gobbling up every man it could find after Stalingrad. (Not to mention the trouble in the occupied countries with the SS/Gestapo/Einsatzgruppen killing off essential workers). Might there be a solution along these lines? i.e.: If you draft all or most of your country's manpower into the army, your production is going to be affected. So the cost of that corps for some Russian swamp would not only be the 100 MPP it costs, but it would be the 20 MPP you lose every turn thereafter. If this is off the beam, put it down to a rookie. But I REALLY LOVE THIS GAME. Thanks, again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Santabear Yes, and one more factor; if all your able bodied men are already in the army, you've not only got unskilled workers attempting to fill skilled jobs, you've also got fewer and fewer able bodied men for future conscriptions! At some point you're reaching into next year's eligibles to fight this year and calling up men who were too old for the previous draft call. More than one Brit and Prussian commented after the battle of Waterloo about feeling sick at having to kill underage boys in French blue. Similarly, film footage of German troops surrendering in 1945 show an overabundance of older men and boys, often as young as twelve, wearing almost comically baggy uniforms. [ March 07, 2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Originally posted by Minotaur: About Arty discovery... I think we should hold the press... Because if the 'Combat Algorithms' is that flawed, we need a new one and most idea will go down the drain because they all assumed we keep the initial formulas... We only though about tweaking it, but now it's more like we scrap & build a new one... That's a huge step... You're reading more into it than is necessary. I don't think the combat algorithms are that flawed. Sure, it may be that some slight tinkering is necessary: I'd like to see units out of supply suffering far more dire consequences. And maybe terrain and entrenchment bonuses should not only decrease defender losses, but increase attacker losses. Other than that, though, it works fine. Even experience, I think is properly modeled. In fact, I'd like to see it increased to .3 points for both offensive and defensive actions, and maybe even more. The problem isn't with the algorithms, it's with the values. The reason that attacking units have such an advantage isn't because the algorithms give them one, it's because attack values for infantry are twice what the defense values are. Let me show how this works, what it results in, and how I'd change it. Let's say we have two German armies, each with 1 XP and attached to an HQ with 1 bonus, attacking a Soviet army that's at level 1 entrenchment in clear terrain. Everybody's at level 7 supply. Those two combats will result in a loss, on average, of 1 point for the Germans and 7 for the Soviets. Throw in an air attack or two, and the Soviet unit disappears. The Soviets have lost 100%, at a cost to the Germans of 5% to 10%. (And maybe 0.) And keep in mind this is against an army; if the opponent is a corps, the Germans are unlikely to suffer any losses. You see what happens? The Germans march across Russia, pounding Soviet corps into oblivion (perfectly historical), but suffering negligible losses themselves! Since they don't have to reinforce those units, they don't lose the experience they gain. And they build more units. The result is that by the time the German force gets to Moscow, instead of being 30% smaller than they were when they started, they're even larger. And overloaded with experience. What would I do? Instead of 4-2 AD ratings, I'd make them 3-4 (and 1-2 for a corps). I'd also change it so that the only effect of air attacks is to reduce the defender's supply and his entrenchment. One air attack and two infantry attacks result in a loss of about 6 points for the defender, but now the German losses are 2-4 points. Even against a lowly corps, the Germans are going to suffer at least 1 and possibly 2 points. You do that a few times, and all of a sudden you're down to 4 or 5 strength, and so you have to reinforce your units instead of building more, and you lose experience... Another thing I'd do: if a unit's strength drops below 50% of its original strenth during an attack, it will retreat. So you've opened up a hole in their line, which your armor can exploit. Now, fast forward a bit to where the Germans are approaching Moscow. The Germans don't have as many units because they've had to spend MPP's reinforcing instead of buying, and the ones they do have are less experienced, and the Russians have a whole lot of infantry because they're cheaper to buy. The German line is a bit overextended because there aren't as many units because the German wants to keep something in reserve in case there should be a breakthrough. The Russian player can simply throw units at the Germans in an effort to slow him down. They're going to suffer horrendous losses: they're going to be going up against more experienced units who probably have better command, and now the Soviets are going to be on the short end of the new combat values. Their losses could easily be 4 or 5 times greater than the German losses. But hey, they've got men to spare. Or, the Russian player could hoard his resources a bit, maybe get some armor, plan for a breakthrough somewhere, somewhere where the German reserves can't arrive in time... Sound interesting? Beats the hell out of having umpteen airfleets blow corps to oblivion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Let me show how this works, what it results in, and how I'd change it... I'll agree with this again. I already indicated that attacker losses should get looked at, and this is a very insightful explanation why. Even with fixes to the economic model, the defender disadvantage is a problem. It hurts Russia in 41-43, and it hurts Germany in 44-45. Another thing I'd do: if a unit's strength drops below 50% of its original strenth during an attack, it will retreat. Maybe for a game option, as a user-defined setting similar to proposed air escort/interception settings. I wouldn't want EVERY unit below 50% to retreat, especially in and around resources I'm trying to defend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts