Colin I Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I like the cheap rebuild option up to a point - simulates nicely something like the destruction of the BEF in France but evacuation of its manpower to nucleate new UK units [through strictly I guess in SC2 the BEF was out of supply so wouldn't get this benefit]. But I wonder, particularly in Russia - its getting tedious and strange just rebuilding same unit repeatedly at reduced cost and no drain on manpower (in the sense the build limits are what you can have in play rather than what population you have left who can fight). Others have said this but unit density is too low in Russia after a while; and its mostly zombies who keep returning from the dead. Sometimes feels more like Buffy the Vampire slayer than WWII Anyone got thoughts? I realize it is military tradition to keep the same unit names and rebuild them after defeat but something feels wrong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellraiser Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 If I remember right, the ideea behind discounted rebuilds is that you never lose completely a unit. I mean , ok, the XXX division/army/whatever was 'destroyed' but as an effective fighting force, not all the men were killed or something. So, you rebuild the said unit around a core, consisiting some guys who managed to escape total annihillation. Actually, it is only the manpower replacement which is discounted, you still have to pay full cost for any upgrade you may want to endow the rebuilt unit. Also, the experience of the 'destroyed' unit is lost, which simulates green troops filling the ranks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n0kn0k Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I just hope the +2 experience on rebuilds will be removed when playing the AI. It's pretty silly that if i destroy virtually his whole army, they come back just as experienced with 2 full bars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Two comments on this. One, the rebuild represents a cadre of surviving members which will hasten the regeneration of a unit. It's not perfect, but does provide the defender a modest time/cost advantage to offset an inherent attack advantage in the game. It helps the Russians when they're withdrawing, and also helps the Germans later when they're withdrawing. Two, trying to model specific manpower numbers is elusive. HOI tries to do this, but it's complex and in the end remains subjective. Force pool limits and MPP costs are adequate, not perfect but OK for a game. There may still be a few other game balance issues involved that could be looked at first before worrying about this. Remember too that SC2 strength points are abstract and relative - what a "10" means in 1941 does not necessarily mean the same in 1945. You can easily imagine you are paying more MPPs for fewer soldiers as time goes on and your manpower pool is becoming exhausted. That was true for every country in WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Originally posted by Colin I: I like the cheap rebuild option up to a point - simulates nicely something like the destruction of the BEF in France but evacuation of its manpower to nucleate new UK units [through strictly I guess in SC2 the BEF was out of supply so wouldn't get this benefit]. But I wonder, particularly in Russia - its getting tedious and strange just rebuilding same unit repeatedly at reduced cost and no drain on manpower (in the sense the build limits are what you can have in play rather than what population you have left who can fight). Others have said this but unit density is too low in Russia after a while; and its mostly zombies who keep returning from the dead. Sometimes feels more like Buffy the Vampire slayer than WWII Anyone got thoughts? I realize it is military tradition to keep the same unit names and rebuild them after defeat but something feels wrong here. Well, just points out the real trick is to cut them all off first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin I Posted October 17, 2006 Author Share Posted October 17, 2006 On the whole I'd like to see the attack advantage blunted very slightly so that more units fight longer (if properly supplied; the greatest mass defeats in WW2 came from pockets and encirclements). I've noticed this with a few wargames (another is Matrix's Battles in Normandy): the number of units damaged to the point of being removed from the board is far larger than unit fragmentation historically. In part, real commanders were more careful with their men and had doctrines that limited some of the more risky exploits. Not sure it explains this completely. I still find end of Russian campaign odd in SC2 - it seems to go from a high unit density to a very low one quite fast -think thats the attack bias at work. At a game level I get a little bored with continually recomissioning destroyed units. Why don't we just increase digging in advantage one step (goes to level 1 immediately)? This is getting a little off topic - agree very much with PZGNDR's comments on the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Well Colin I just made a quick scan of the stats, and just for line rifle divisions only the USSR reformed around 170 that were previously destroyed. Some of those divisons were destroyed and reformed up to three times not including their origin. Now as far as the SC2 eastern front, I think it plays well, especially after the morale issue is patched. Now with the possibility of Engineers being a bit cheaper(not sure I agree), I think the defense will be a little more substantial in 1.05. I've had good luck in using Engineer fortifications to funnel the enemy attacks while backing them with a sizeable supported counter-attacking force. Are you talking an AI game or H to H, cause I believe a patient human USSR player can pretty well blunt and bleed the Axis offensive. Emphasis on the word "patience". Sound historical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agamemnon Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 its mostly zombies who keep returning from the dead. They fight like zombies too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts