Duro Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 I find that most of the time in SC1, when you surround a city with troops or tanks is almost sometimes impossible to break throgh from any side. I was thinking that if surrounding a city or troops, will make the opposing surronded troops loose morale or experience ( not so much experience but you know what i mean) when going against them 5-1. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Trapp Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 It could be argued the opposite, since the surrounded unit is fighting for their lives, they would be more willing to take heavy losses in order to remain intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosevelt45 Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 When troops are completely cut off from supply, their morale will of course go down but I don't see why expirience should go down. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Gen. Guderian Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 They should make it a possibility that an army will surrender if surrounded. Say, you could make it less likely for them to surrender if they have more experience but perhaps a fresh italian corps would surrender straight away. You could also make it so that the further you go into the enemy's territory, the less likely they are to surrender. I think this would put more emphasis on keeping armies intact and trying to avoid great Kessels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 It would be cool if there was a surrender option for surrounded units, esp. since in real life very few unit's were ever totally destroyed in combat, ie. fight to the last man. If there was some kind of bennifit to surrendering as oposed to letting your unit be destroyed. Maybe if a friendly unit that is surrounded surrenders you gain back some MPPs and so does the country who surrounded the unit. Or it could have an effect on units in the area in terms of supply/morale etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 The main benefit in surrendering, in game terms, is that it deprives the enemy forces of experience. If Paris is surrounded by the Germans and at Strength 5 then it might be preferable for the allies to surrender France to the Axis instead of letting the Germans earn some easy experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Thats true too Edwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 From Bastogne,"Nuts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Gen. Guderian Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Have you read band of brothers? None of the men really liked General McAuliffe much. Apparently he was always cheery and optimistic, which I think is a big sign of a bad general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Krupp Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 One thing I will always remember from SC1 was laying siege to places like Moscow and having to spend turn after turn wearing the defences down-sometimes you'd get 3 armies in and destroying the first two would be fair straightforward but then the last army in the city just kept on getting replenished turn after turn and you had to move up your whole airforce and any rocket units you had.... I think if a unit is cut off then it should be penalised in order to simulate lack of supplies-on the other hand you could also give air units the oppertuinity to supply troops from the air as well-it may not have worked in Stalingrad but there was one German unit that held out for something like 70 days from air drops. Certainly encirclements should be looked at more closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Gen. Guderian Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 Originally posted by Arthur Krupp: One thing I will always remember from SC1 was laying siege to places like Moscow and having to spend turn after turn wearing the defences down-sometimes you'd get 3 armies in and destroying the first two would be fair straightforward but then the last army in the city just kept on getting replenished turn after turn and you had to move up your whole airforce and any rocket units you had.... I don't mean to condescend, but couldn't you just have encircled it? If you do that then it's only a short matter of time before it falls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 Agreed, if you encircle it then the unit can only reinforce to 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapaho Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 When I 'kill' an army or corps, I like to think that I have destroyed not the army in itself(100% casualties) but rather its effective fighting capabilities, which means it basically surrenders. One thing that I would think may be modified is that if you attack a hex (ahem, square ) and you successfully defeat the enemy unit, should your army not move into the ground the enemy held? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts