aesopo Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Before SC2 is finished, everyone has overlooked that each unit draws supplies and maintenance cost in real terms, each unit has to cost MPP and draw from a supply pool. A unit in the front lines in combat draws more supplies-maintenance. No frekin army was just buiilt from the ground up without maintenance and support. Just my humble opinion. Any comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Very good point aesopo. Supply has been abstracted up to this point, what do you propose? I would like a system that requires no micromanagement, just thought. Are you advocating the expenditure of MPPs for combat? If so should armies expend more than corps? Should certain units expend more than others? What about when on defense and in certain types of terrain or weather conditions? Your humble opinion requires details for implementation. A subject worthy of comment from the community, developer, testers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesopo Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 Probably one MPP for a corps, two for armies, three for tank groups etcetera. It is probably too late to incorporate a supply pool (certain amount of country's MPP diverted to the supply pool to keep units supplied - HQs provide efficiency to org). Probably the abstraction of MPP is better right now as Hubert would not have to tear his hair out too much in coding in implementing a supply pool. If you do not have sufficent MPPs to support your units, their orgs will suffer. It does not make any sense for 200-300 represented combined divisions (infantry, airplanes, ships) operating without any adverse effect on your economy. Now, that is so unrealistic! I don't know how hard it will be to recode for decreased supplies in inclimate weather. Air superiority and strategic bombing should also have an effect on your supplies as it historically did in WW2. Combat should cost MPPs to represent extra supplies spent and coordination. The real problem to all of this, is how hard to incorporate this with the current coding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 There has already been much information posted previoulsy on Germany's Resources, Manpower and Industrial capacity...bombed and unbombed...if you want an absolute Historical Campaign. So it shouldn't be too overly difficult to extapolate a theoretical maximum limit of Industrial Capacity...based on what quantity was originally produced as a benchmark..., then adjusting that original benchmark as circumstances dictate...such as less industry destroyed or put out of commission. Who want's to do that???...Not Me!!!. As new lands, Resources and Industrial Infrastructure / Capacity are captured --- damaged or undamaged...these would also effect the max-production limit on war materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 It is abstracted in the form of original purchase price of the unit, plus a HQ to keep it going effectively, MPPs to reinforce it, and of course, the city, port, and resource hexes in the first place. You want to attack somebody's supply, attrit his units, destroy his HQ's or degrade those hexes. You could add a MPP cost to do attacks relatively easy I suppose, but then you'd need to increase the amount of MPPs available (or lower unit prices!) and everything would have to be playtested and balanced again. But really, the MPP cost is already there to some extent in the form of the cost to repair all the units that took place in your offensive. Would it be worth it? Or can you just live with the abstraction the way it is? I mean, bottom line, we'd just be substituting one way of adding up the numbers for another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesopo Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 Nope, not really - units do cost money to maintain (salaries, equipment, fuel, ammunition, rations, etc) It is not a one time deal that you spend the MPPs to purchase a unit without supporting it. Hubert any comments? Is it too late to address this issue? Has this been brought up before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Aesopo, there is a maintenence expense in SC and presumably there will be in SC2 as well. The SC expression coined last year by Shaka of Carthage, The Reds and the Blues, explains part of this; that the units are the same even between different countries. We've discussed all of that innumerable times so there's no point going into it here. So everything, including maintenence cost, has to be an abstraction. I'm not certain how it works out in SC, but I do the number of units fielded is a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesopo Posted November 24, 2004 Author Share Posted November 24, 2004 I have never noticed this built in SC1 where the number of units you have on the field affects your MPP. I have disbanded units and my MPP did not increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts