Increased Movement Cost for Entering Enemy Territory

[ev]

There should be a high movement cost for entering enemy squares or tiles.

...say entering an empty enemy square should have a cost 50%: so if it cost 1 MPP to enter a friendly clear hex, it should cost 1.5 MPP to enter an enemy clear hex. This movement penalty would account for the need extra for caution when marching accross enemy territory, and, also for the effect of roadblocks, minefields, bobytraps, snipers, rearguard units, refugees clogging the roads, etc.

Note, that I am not speaking of zones of control, but enemy tiles. Pennalties for entering enemy ZOC (if any) would be in addition to the pennalties for entering enemy squares. This may not make much of a difference in a cluttered front like France, but, it may make a huge difference in many other fronts.

Also note that this penalty would be in addition to the penalty which already exist in SC1 for entering enemy controlled river hexes...

This scheme would make mechanized units more valuable. Mechanized units, with their added movement capability would be used to spearhead an advance into enemy territory, hence clearing a path for the slow moving foot soldiers which could march along already cleared (friendly) territory.

Using the movement capabilities from SC1, we would get the following results:

Say an infantry army with mech level 0 starts with a movement capability of 3 (just as in SC1). The enemy territory penalty would reduce its movement capability to 2 enemy hexes. Now, let's say an infantry unit with mech level 5 would have a movement capability of 8. When entering enemy territory, this would ammount to 5.4. That is not much diferent from a tank unit in SC1, when maneauvering in enemy territory.

Meanwhile, a tank unit with Mech Tech level 0 would be able to enter 5 friendly (using SC1 movement capabilities). But the same tank unit would only be able to enter 3.33 enemy hexes. Meanwhile, a tank unit with Mech Tech 5 woud be able to enter 10 friendly but only 6.66 enemy squares.

A penalty to enter enemy territory may require the game designer to revise the movement capabilities of each land unit. But I have the feeling the revision need not be that radical...

The above scheme would give units moving behind our lines a much wider range of movement than units entering enemy territory. This is realistic, and, would probably lead to a far "better" deployment of reserve units.

Conceivably we could have a Recon Tech, such that advances in Recon Tech could reduce the penalty for entering enemy territory. Or, advances in Recon Tech could make it more likely that enemy tiles are converted into friendly tiles. I don't have a strong feeling either way on Recon Tech. But, I would really like to hear how you all feel about penalties for entering enemy territory.

[fischkopf]

I actually love the idea of penalized movement in enemy territory.

As with all game ideas it would have to be prototyped and tested to see it if it actually worked out, but I my guess is that this one would work out very well.

[SeaMonkey]

ev, would you concur that the proximity of the Engineer unit would negate the extra movement cost? Turn time = 1 week minimum.

[ev]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

ev, would you concur that the proximity of the Engineer unit would negate the extra movement cost? Turn time = 1 week minimum.

Interesting point SeaMonkey. Engineers would help with roadblocks and bridges. ...though not so much with snippers, rearguard actions, or civilian refugees clogging the roads.

On the other hand, "nearby" means 50 miles away per tile given the scale of this game... Which is really not that close.

Finally, I am assuming that each tank group, army or corps has its own engineers capable of removing roadblocks, clearing minefields and setting bridges. It just takes time to do this kind of things, even if you have engineers.

...and, it also takes time to deal with snippers, and reargaurd units, and, columns of civilian refugees, and, specially it takes time to deal with the "unknown" of being in hostile territory - even if you have engineers.

I am still not sure what "Engineer units" will do in SC2, but it sounds that they are more like big construction companies for building fortiifications, and not combat engineers. Nevertheless, I would like to hear from the game designers what they mean by "engineer units", before commenting any further on your point...

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by ev:

I would like to hear from the game designers what they mean by "engineer units", before commenting any further on your point...

First, there is only ONE game designer: Hubert Cater. :cool:

Pzgndr and I merely handle a few chores around the Work Shop when asked to do so. My own handle usually has a broom attached to the end of it. And occasionally, we'll chip in with a suggestion or two, but really, these are not much more likely to be implemented than one of yours might be.

Next, Engineers are posited as "construction engineers" which can only build fortifications... over a set period of time, which can be edited.

Whether they will be allowed to do anything else, well, that's up to Hubert.

__________________

Interesting to consider, however: for all those who have been clamoring for elite units?

I suppose you could edit this one and make it an extra potent, multi-valuable... SS, or Army Rangers, or Guards Unit or Brit Commandos.

Which could also build fortifications in their spare time, being that they are super sorts of men.

Or, you could "edit out" any fortification building ability... and one surefire way would be to set the delay for construction at maximum build time requirement of... 12 months.

This would likely preclude use, since few Players would want their "elite unit" out of action for that long.

[ May 10, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[ev]

Thanks for the info D.D.

I had the feeling construction engineers would be so limited, and, I think I understand the reasoning behind it.

...oh, by the way, now that I have your attention, any reaction to the idea of higher movement costs for entering enemy squares?

[Roosevelt45]

Personnaly I hate the idea of movement costing money. I know that it's more realistic but still...

I don't see why moving to an enemy square should cost more?

[Desert Dave]

Well ev, I have read over your rationales and closely & capably argued first post.

I would say this: we do not have stacking in this game, which is VERY good for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that is very easy to keep track of all your units.

Since we don't have stacking, my main concern would be that additional movement penalties, or even ZOCs... would "clog up the passing lanes." And there we all are! revving our souped-up hot-rod sports cars! (... mine is a '65 GTO 389 w/tri-carbs) :cool:

Meaning... it might be best to avoid situations where you are trying to break through a small opening in the lines, BUT you have just too many units... WHICH CANNOT STACK... trying to squeeze through.

Picture the possible complications when trying to execute a breakthrough in France... other than the signs that point both ways, I mean.

Sure, you COULD plan so very exquisitely and with such incredible finesse ... that your units are all exactly lined up in order of action points... but, that might be too obtrusive on game playing time?

And could enough of them get through to make consequent difference in the blitz & surround?

Hubert will have to provide the final explanations on this one... I gotta go sweep out the store room where ALL those almost countless new CD cases are kept.

[ev]

...mhm...

I see your point D.D. ...and, I guess this would also make things very difficult for the AI.

My thoughts:

In WWI both the Germans and the Allies figured out ways to break through enemy lines (mainly through the use of storm troopers and tanks). What they never had was the means to keep the momentum going forward. Mechanization as proposed by Guderian and others was the answer to the problem of how to keep the momentum.

I would like SC2 to somehow simulate the importance of mechanization in exploiting breakthroughs. Non-mech units cannot not keep strategic momentum even if the initial attacks achieve a breakthrough. My proposal above limits the capacity of a foot army to make substantial headway on enemy territory ...because... in real life, only mechanized units could achieve that kind of strategic level momentum.

...of course, the difficulty lies in finding the most elegant way to simulate in SC2 the value of mechanization. I will keep thinking on this subject and let you know of any ideas.

...keep up the good work!

[Panzeh]

I think that would be good for representing smaller units, militias, and other forces that are out of scale but have a little effect.

[SeaMonkey]

Interesting DD, we have met again, you say a 389 Pontiac eh, 65 you say! Where do you find the leaded gasoline(additives) or have you rebuilt with hardened valve/valve seats? I'm a little more contemporary, a pair of 86 and 87 Turbo Regals, the 86 is a Grand National, the 87 a white Turbo T. Never the less American Muscle = lots of fun.

[ May 10, 2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[pzgndr]

Pzgndr and I merely handle a few chores around the Work Shop when asked to do so. My own handle usually has a broom attached to the end of it. And occasionally, we'll chip in with a suggestion or two, but really, these are not much more likely to be implemented than one of yours might be.

And I have the mop! To echo Dave's comment, SC is Hubert's game. We ALL provide input and he DOES consider all suggestions, but in the end he alone is the artist hard at work on his creation. Dave and I may speak with some notional authority because we're privy to some insider information, but please don't confuse us with who's in charge.

...oh, by the way, now that I have your attention, any reaction to the idea of higher movement costs for entering enemy squares?

If Hubert revises things to essentially double unit AP and makes moving across tile faces 2 MC and across diagonals 3 MC, we could very well consider a +1 MC to enter an enemy controlled tile. In SC1 we have +1 to cross an enemy controlled river. Once the first unit is across, the river is considered bridged, so there's a precedent there.

If we double things, then river crossings would be +2? So entering other enemy tiles with a +1 penalty wouldn't be so bad and might be very realistic. Lead elements could only go so far, but follow-on forces could go farther. If you plan movements right. I'd be concerned that this could slow down breakthroughs and exploitations TOO much. But on the other hand it could significantly help moderate some of the wild breakthroughs I have seen in many games. This would help both Russians and Germans in the strategic defense as they fall back from relentless attackers. :cool:

[Shaka of Carthage]

There should be an additional cost for penetrating an enemy zone of control, but there should not be an additional cost for moving thru an enemy tile.

One of the things we don't see, is that our Corp and Army size units do exert control into the surrounding tiles. Even if its just the divisional reconnaisance elements, there are units out there acting as eyes and ears. Its one of the key reasons they have a spotting range. Depending on the national doctrine, those recon units will harass the enemy, either by engaging in combat themselves, by calling in artillery or air, calling in heavier units or any combination of those. This is a low level combat that we don't see in SC, but it is going on. Hence, the additional cost for penetrating an enemy zone of control.

Units moving thru enemy tiles are already moving prepared for combat, so they are not moving at top speed. Thats what the Action Points already represent. There is no need to further reduce it.

[Shaka of Carthage]

An interesting point was brought up during this dicussion. Breakthrus and Srategic Momentum.

Yes, foot bound infantry units cannot maintain a strategic breakthru, because they are too slow (can't get far enough into the rear to cut off the enemy). But we have to be very clear here, that we are talking about foot or horse drawn infantry units. Thats what the units where in WWI and thats what the majority of German units where in WWII.

The problem in SC though, is that the Infantry units are moving too fast for horse transports. The Infantry Corps and Armies should only have a Action point of two (2), not three (3) or four (4) in SC.

Motorized and Mechanized Infantry can maintain a strategic breakthru, as long as they are fighting slower opponents. Major difference between the two, is that the motorized are road constrained, while the mechs are not.

Thats the problem with SC currently, is that the German military is completely motorized. So once you get a breakthru, you can use Corps just like you would should be using Panzers.

SC2 will fix this, which will then give back one of the major advantages that the US and UK units had against the Germans... strategic mobility.

[pzgndr]

Units moving thru enemy tiles are already moving prepared for combat, so they are not moving at top speed. Thats what the Action Points already represent. There is no need to further reduce it.

But there IS a difference between non-tactical movement in friendly territory away from enemy units and tactical movement in enemy territory. The current unit AP is the same. We could consider some penalty for tactical movements, OR some bonus for non-tactical redeployments. I've always fancied the idea that operational moves should be double AP as long as the unit is not adjacent to the enemy at any point, and strategic moves (SRs a la 3R) would be what the current op move is.

units do exert control into the surrounding tiles

Yes, so perhaps we could have the ZOC concept used in SC2 to impose a +1 movement penalty into enemy controlled tiles adjacent to enemy units only. Once an enemy tile is entered, the penalty wouldn't apply any more. Also, the ZOC works both ways. When a unit moves forward it changes adjacent vacant tiles into friendly controlled, which also helps the advance of follow-on forces.

Thats the problem with SC currently, is that the German military is completely motorized.

With mechanization as a tech, we can play around with movement rates more. If we reduce movement to be more realistic, then the +1 penalty suggested above may not be necessary. However, the +1 could only apply to the first unit entering enemy controlled territory, not the follow-on forces. This may cause just enough friction without unnecessarily preventing breakthroughs, exploitations and encirclements.

I do like the idea of slowing down both the Germans and the Russians. Action on the Russian Front should then be more historical, both in 41-42 when the Germans are blitzing forward and in 43-44 when the Russians are on the roll.

[ev]

I really like the points you made in your last two entries, pzgndr.

If Hubert revises things to essentially double unit AP and makes moving across tile faces 2 MC and across diagonals 3 MC, we could very well consider a +1 MC to enter an enemy controlled tile. In SC1 we have +1 to cross an enemy controlled river. Once the first unit is across, the river is considered bridged, so there's a precedent there.

Yes!

I also hear your concern,

I'd be concerned that this could slow down breakthroughs and exploitations TOO much. But on the other hand it could significantly help moderate some of the wild breakthroughs I have seen in many games.

One way to address this matter is to provide mechanized forces more action points to better overcome the enemy territory penalty, thus mech forces could still breakthrough and expoit, while holding down the AP's for non-mech units. Foot soldiers should bearly have enough AP's to keep up with the mech formations while the mech formations clear enemy territory. Mech formations should be the spearheads that cut into enemy territorry.

And, I agree 100%,

there IS a difference between non-tactical movement in friendly territory away from enemy units and tactical movement in enemy territory. The current unit AP is the same. We could consider some penalty for tactical movements, OR some bonus for non-tactical redeployments.

Say entering a friendly square costs 1/2 action point, and, do nothing else. D.D.'s concern about things getting to tight in France 1940 would he addressed since this only makes things easier for the Germans. In fact, if anything, things could become too fluid. If play testing shows things are too fluid we could reduce somewhat the AP's of non-mech units, and fine tune from there. -gosh, it sound fun.

As far as ZOC's is concerned, I would not oppose some movement penalty for entering enemy ZOC's, but that would be in addition to, not instead of the cost of clearing enemy territory.

With regards to your last remark,

I do like the idea of slowing down both the Germans and the Russians. Action on the Russian Front should then be more historical, both in 41-42 when the Germans are blitzing forward and in 43-44 when the Russians are on the roll.

I want to slow down the German and Russian Infantry, which makes up say 80% of their forces. But, I also want to make those infantry units more dependent on mech units to spearhead attacks. Foots units should have to rely on mech units to acts as spearheads because foot soldiers should not be able to clear enemy territory at a fast enough clip. Foot infantry should follow the mechanized spearheads as they try to envelop the opposing army.

I would very much like to see a strategic game that adequately simulates these limitations of foot soldiers in achieving strategic momentum, and the need for mech spearheads to achieve this very momentum. In a strategic game that successfully represents this reality, we should find the kind of pincer encirclements that characterized the German Blitzkrieg: Mechanized spearheads would clear a path through which foot infantry can march at a fast enough clip to encircle the opposing army. Meahwhile foot infantry without the advantage of mech spearheads would be stuck into slow advances that never achieve strategic momentum. Such a game would present players with a better picture of the trade offs and the dilemas faced by WWII leaders.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by SeaMonkey:

... a 389 Pontiac eh, 65 you say!

Yep, but... ack and alas,

It is merely a VERY fond memory by now.

I'd give my right OR left index finger if I could have that silver-blue, 2dr HT, American Mag wheel'd 389 cid, tri-carb'd beauty machine back again!

What happened was, the wife decided she didn't like to drive it, it was, oh, TOO "clunky" (... due to the heavy duty clutch and suspension, you know...) and as it was our ONLY mode of transportation just then, I had to sell 'er off and we got this little "lawn-mower thing"... a Karmann Ghia convertible, which she could race around Town in and let her long hair blow in the summer wind.

Like I say... ack and alas. :confused:

[SeaMonkey]

Remember DD "you ain't dead yet"! I too was a muscle car fan back in 1966-1972, but didn't have the scratch, then when I did, picked up my Buicks X2. There are still some nice restores out there, persevere, your time will come again, ....the ole cliche "every dog has his day, and good dogs get two".

Oh yeah, this time buy the wife her own.

[ May 13, 2004, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Desert Dave]

Got that part figured SM, since she has her beloved "Help me Rhonda" Honda, which I am hardly allowed to look at askance, let alone drive to the grocery store in, but... yeah, I have been keeping an eye out for one of those fabulous old "muscle cars"... out here in the desert, there are still a few old 50s & 60s gems to be found that aren't all rusted to shreds!

[ev]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

There should be an additional cost for penetrating an enemy zone of control, but there should not be an additional cost for moving thru an enemy tile.

One of the things we don't see, is that our Corp and Army size units do exert control into the surrounding tiles. Even if its just the divisional reconnaisance elements, there are units out there acting as eyes and ears. Its one of the key reasons they have a spotting range. Depending on the national doctrine, those recon units will harass the enemy, either by engaging in combat themselves, by calling in artillery or air, calling in heavier units or any combination of those. This is a low level combat that we don't see in SC, but it is going on. Hence, the additional cost for penetrating an enemy zone of control.

Keep in mind that units affect the territory around them by converting it from enemy territory to enemy territory. In SC1, when a unit moves through or into empty enemy territory it converts the hex it occupies, and the unoccupied hexes around it into friendly territory. So a unit indeed affects the space around it. The problem is that once it is converted into friendly territory, it has no effect either on the movement of friendlies or on the movements of enemies. It only affects river crossings and supplies.

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Units moving thru enemy tiles are already moving prepared for combat, so they are not moving at top speed. Thats what the Action Points already represent. There is no need to further reduce it.

The action points may or may not be close to tactical movement capabilities, but they do not reflect the distinction between tactical and non-tactical movement.

I would like to see a foot infantry unit move at non-tactical speed it when advancing behind an armored spearhead. A foot infantry advancing in this manner should be able to cover more territory, than moving on its own at tactical speed through enemy territory.

I also would like to see units moving at non-tactical speed behind frienly lines to be able to do so at greater speeds than units advancing in enemy territory at tactical speed.

Whether the solution is to increase non-tactical speed or to decrease non-tactical speed, or a combination of both, I do not know. Play testing would be most informative. In any even, I have the feeling SC2 will have to revise the movement capabilities of all units to take into account the square grid, the mechanization technology, the larger size of the map, the incorporation of weather and the incorporation of new types of terrain (such as artic terrain), etc. I hope that when this revision comes, Hubert manages to accomadate my request to diferentiate between tactical and non-tactical speeds.