KDG Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Just make the attacking equation result in at least a 50% chance of the attacker losing 1 point per attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by Bill Macon: 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. "General, the 1st corps is retreating!" "Damn! I didn't want them to do that!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by KDG: Just make the attacking equation result in at least a 50% chance of the attacker losing 1 point per attack. You bring up a good point. You may be able to accomplish what I suggested even better by simply making it 100% chance of the attacker losing at least 1 point in the attack. Fifty percent probably wouldn't cut it, but 100% definitely would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by Bill Macon: 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.Excellent point. In fact, you might want to look at reinforcements again. It costs 108 MPP's to reinforce an army from 1 to 10. That's 43% of the cost of building a new one. So essentially you're getting 90% of a new unit (the 10% was already there) at half-price. I'm not suggesting you make it a full 1-1 exchange, but reinforcement costs are too low. This goes back to what I've been harping on with the interplay between the economic and combat models: Germany remains so strong because (a) it doesn't suffer the losses it historically did during the years when it was on the offensive and ( it doesn't cost Germany as much as it should to replace the losses it does suffer. Again, though, you have to look at the whole picture. If reinforcements cost more, then the Russians are going to fare even worse than they do now, because they suffer far worse losses, and would still do so even if the combat engine is changed. You have to compensate in another way, such as by making Russian infantry cheaper to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by arby: It costs 108 MPP's to reinforce an army from 1 to 10. That's 43% of the cost of building a new one. So essentially you're getting 90% of a new unit (the 10% was already there) at half-price. I'm not suggesting you make it a full 1-1 exchange, but reinforcement costs are too low. This goes back to what I've been harping on with the interplay between the economic and combat models: Germany remains so strong because (a) it doesn't suffer the losses it historically did during the years when it was on the offensive and ( it doesn't cost Germany as much as it should to replace the losses it does suffer. Good point. Russia was usually much harder to take down in CoS (yeah I know, Hubert is probably getting tired of that comparison!), because of all those half-strength corps the Russkies could rebuy (after they got overrun). The only way to truly eliminate a unit was to cut it off first, THEN kill it. Else the damned things would keep popping back up like roaches, requiring you to stomp them, over and over again... In SC, it doesn't matter how you eliminate a unit. I think CoS had it right [in general]: the men from an "eliminated" but in supply unit could fall back and get reformed into new formations. Dunno how Hubert could sim this without reinventing the wheel, but it is likely one source of the problem for the Russians. JD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 8, 2003 Author Share Posted March 8, 2003 The size of the map sould be taken into account in the obvious lack of ressources... Especially for the Allies... Russia - When Axis reach a line Leningrad-Smolensk-Kharkov-Twin Mines-Sevastopol, you know USSR is in trouble... USSR lost a good chunk of MPPs and produce less than Germany... If a landing is not done somewhere to stop Axis momentum, it's Game Over soon... That's why we saw "D-Day" as soon as 1942!... Russia should still receive some MMPs from Urals, Siberia, etc... Not just the Siberian troops... USA - A lot of ppl agree (me too...) that USA has not enough MPP... So much has been said about USA outproducing Germany in 1944!... UK - Lack of MPPs & troops coming from Commonwealth countries via convoys is also an inaccuracy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Interesting tid-bits about having units retreat. I'd have Four categories. One would be overrun , where a hopeless defender is simply removed and it costs 1 movement point for the attacking unit with no loss. Two would be Tactical retreat which would be a reasonable withdrawl if a unit drops to 50% or less. Three would be a route, where a unit is badly defeated and goes several hexes away from the fighting with a consequent drop in both strength and experience. Fourth would be units that receive the No Retreat order. Such units would remain in place unless routed. A successful defense would also and always result in higher losses, otherwise the order would always be issued. Defenders of Fortifications -- many of which are no retreat positions like Sevastopol, Malta and Gibraltar -- would always fight in this mode. Their heavier mandatory losses would represent the use of siege guns and/or engineer/sapper units against their fixed defenses. [copied to SC 2 Combat Forum] [ March 08, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Minotaur Russia should still receive some MMPs from Urals, Siberia, etc... Not just the Siberian troops... USA - A lot of ppl agree (me too...) that USA has not enough MPP... So much has been said about USA outproducing Germany in 1944!... UK - Lack of MPPs & troops coming from Commonwealth countries via convoys is also an inaccuracy... I worked these numbers out sometime ago, comparing SC to 3R, COS and High Command. I'll give you some of the summaries below. Russia in SC, receives alot more MPPs than in the other games. COS was the closest, but even so, only worked out to about 343 MPPs. US in COS only gets 129 MPPs. The "missing" MPPs that "everyone" believes should be given to the US is already included in the USSR totals. UK gets alot more (257 MPPs) in COS. The "missing" MPPs for the UK are in the USSR totals. The USSR in SC has all these missing production numbers that people feel should be in the US and UK totals. I believe it was done this way to eliminate us as players having to perform a "step" to represent Lend-Lease. Btw, its just alot easier to "bump" the topic than it is to retype it. I haven't figured out how to include the "link" to the topic like other people do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 I'm sorry but even though the Germans could never come up to the manpower, they'd of made up for it other ways. i.e. more artillery, planes and tanks. They pack a more powerful pounch and though they take training, and resources it doesn't take unlimited manpower to create them. For overall Army Size, 10% of the population is usual.. In the Great War, the Russians had an Army you wouldn't believe. 15 million men??? would that be 150 army units in this game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 9, 2003 Author Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by Liam: In the Great War, the Russians had an Army you wouldn't believe. 15 million men??? would that be 150 army units in this game? Or perhaps it would be only 15 Armies, because they have only pitchforks as weapon... It's not only quantity, but also quality that matters... Perhaps an army that have 100,000 well trained, well equiped mens equal another army that have 500,000 poorly trained & equiped mens... [ March 09, 2003, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Minotaur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 regardless isn't that taken into consideration when you blitz through the frontline Russians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts