Corps Vs Armies, Defense

[Xanos]

I have noticed that armies are just about double the stats of a corps on offense. This seems correct as an army cost twice as much and is supposed to be about twice as big as an corps and thus, more people, more firing... more damage.

My problem is that armies, while costing twice as much, have the same Defense as a corps. This game is showing that having twice as many men means that they fight double (50% better on other soft targets) on offense but are only as good as half of their numbers on defense.

Now, did the other half get the turn off or is this showing something that I have overlooked? It would follow logic that the extra men would improve the over all defense of the unit.

(I think their may already be another topic covering this, and if so, please direct me to it, thank you)

[hellraiser]

It's all about the military doctrine - SC2 assumes only offensive doctrine.

I am kidding of course

Defence is an issue that's been raised in several threads, ppl complained about defence being rather useless, which is, more or less, true afaic. Maybe the upcoming patch will change this, Or maybe not...we'll see this week (I hope).

As it is now, the concept of defence in SC2 is 'fall back to high supply areas and hit your enemy when he runs out of supply' I am reffering to Russia mostly. The techs boost attack values even more so defending is an utopia left aside for a few places (mountains, behind some rivers).

I guess the increased offensive capabilities we see in SC2 have a reason: to avoid WW I trench warfare we had in SC 1 - again i am reffering mostly to Russia (the most important theater of WW2 anyway). But, while it kinda solved the trench warfare issue, it opened up a new hole

[TaoJah]

First of all : a corps moves faster then an army, so that is an advantage.

Also, when you do the math for attacking, the cost of armies is NOT double as the cost for corps, because you got to pay for a headquarter.

The cost for 5 corps attacking with 1 headquarter is 900 (5 * 100 + 1 * 400). The cost for 5 corps attacking with 1 headquarter is 1400 (5 * 200 + 1 * 400).

So the difference in cost is only 55%, not 100%.

Seems more or less fair to me.

[Sombra]

@TaoJah: Other advantages of corps are:

You have two units to move around, hit targets, 2 attacks in row are more destructive then one hard attack (lower moral/readiness of defender, less entrenchment), to kill 2 corps you need more units then killing one army.

Besides I think Hellraiser said it all. Defense is quite difficult. Lets see what the patch brings.

[hellraiser]

Originally posted by Sombra:

to kill 2 corps you need more units then killing one army.

This is a good remark.

Actually an army consists of several army corps (2-4) so killing an entire army should be more of a task than killing only 2 corps

OTOH, if the defence values are editable (I don't know since I haven't worked with the editor so far) there are little chances that the patch would modify the combat values - kinda makes sense, well more or less

[hellraiser]

@Tao Jah -> dude I agree but you're talking about 'attacking'. The issue is defending here. 5 armies killed while defending is 1000 while 5 corps killed while defending is 500 - same defense values for army/corps so why should I bother to defend with armies

[Baron]

I just increased the Army defense (doubled) value. Armies have several Corps attached and should be better at defense than Corps. You have all the Army level attachments plus those that the Corps bring with them. On the other hand Armies should not be as mobile as the Corps since they do have all the extra baggage to cart around.

[bloodstar]

Actually the best way to view it is that an army is a concentrated punch of power, a corps on it's own is not going to be anywhere near as effective. if nothing else, think of the C^3 effect on the Army. if a corps unattached had a relative attack value of 3, an army should have a force multiplier on it and be around a 9 or 10 (at least, maybe as high as 15?). Their defenses should be about the same. 2 armies of equal power should chew each other up, an army against a corps should have a chewed up corps and a scratched army. 2 corps hitting each other should have 2 scratched corps.

In an ideal world, I'd say that if every 3 points of attack should yield about 1 point of damage to the opponant then a corp should do one point of damage and an army would respond back with 3 2 corps should do 1 to each other. and 2 armies should do 3 to each other.

Obviously there are much more complex factors involved, but that's assuming everything else equal.

because there aren't coordinated attacks (combine all your units together a la Clash of Steel), you have to find a way to emulate that effect, which is where morale comes into play I suppose. pound a spot until it breaks then send the armor through to exploit the hole. If you had coordinated attacks al a COS methodology, you could better emulate the concept of superior odds in attacking.