Army Unit vs. Infantry Corps in SC2

[ev]

There are some oddities about the existing Army Unit. In the past I have written or read other forum members birng forth separate questions which I think merit setting in one single topic.

Back in ths SC1 days a lot was said about the fact that SC did not provide for stacking. Some argued convincingly that the Army Unit was an acceptable alternative to stacking. The idea was that an Army Unit would represent a stack of 2-3 corps.

...and, back then someone asked: "why is the Army Unit slower than the Infantry Corps"? The answer was that the Army Unit represented a much larger group of infantrymen (2-3 corps). And, clearly it takes more time to march 150,000 men through a couple of roads and into possition than marching just 50,000 men.

This is a fair enough answer. But does the Army Unit in SC2 really behaves like a concentration of 2-3 corps into a single tile?

The combat values in SC2 represent the firepower of a unit. Higher combat values result in higher losses to the opposing unit. But a higher combat value does not mean a unit can take more punishment. The amount of punishment a unit can take is determined by the unit's combat strength.

When you pack 2-3 corps into a single tile, the result should not be higher firepower, since most of your additional units would be kept in reserve, behind the front lines. Instead the result should be a higher capacity to withstand losses, since you have a large reserve several miles behind the front line. - That's what defense in depth and echeloned attack stand for: keeping a lot of reserves out of harms way during openning part of an engagement so you may have them available during later stages...

When I recently mentioned this, one of you reacted:

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

I agree Armies are usually greater in manpower than Corps, but not necessarily firepower.

Accordingly, if Army Units really represent a concentration of 2-3 Corps in a single tile, then they should have similar combat values (firepower) to those of an infantry corps but a much higher combat strength (manpower).

Back then Sea Monkey warned that concentrating 2-3 Corps into a single tile would result in higher losses during a bombardment. I beg to differ: Defense in depth was all about keeping multiple defensive lines several miles behind each in order to minimize losses from initial bombardment. Thining your front line, on the other hand, made your only defensive line more vulnerable since it was pinned by the initial bombardment and there was not a second line of dissengaged men to prevent encirclement of the pinned front line units. It also made your supporting services (artillery, communications, logistics, etc.) vulnerable if the first and only defensive line was broken.

Given the scale of SC2, it would be perfectly consistent with WW II history to imagine 6 divisions (2 corps) packed into a single tile, building multiple trench lines within that tile to provide defense in depth. ...or to make a multi echelonned attack where several divisions are kept off the initial attack and used to defend the acquired tile once the oppossing unit breaks down.

If we conceive of Army Units as 2-3 Corps, Army Units should have higher combat values - say 20 instead of 10. And Army Units should cost twice as much MPP's to build (say 200.

Alternatively, to the extent that both units have the same manpower (combat strength), we may think of these units not as Armies vs. Corps but as Heavy Infantry vs. Light Infantry. Heavy Infantry would have a larger assortment of heavy machine guns, anti tank guns, and artillery. These were cumbersome weapons that would slow down the whole unit, but, it would also give the unit much more firepower.

However, a lot of this heavy weapon was - because of its weight - more usefull in defense than offense. And, when you compare the SC2 values for Armies (Heavy) and Corps (Light), it turns out that Armies (Heavies) are not better in defense. A heavy infantry (army) unit should have higher SD and TD than the corresponding light infantry (corps).

I believe the current Army vs. Corps distinction is out of whack. It does not correspond accurately with what it purports to represent Army = stack of 2-3 corps. It looks a bit more like a heavy vs. light distinction, but again the combat values do not match.

If we really mean to have an Army vs. Corps distinction, the Army unit should have higher combat strength but the same combat values as the Corps. If, on the other hand, we mean to distinguish between heavy and light infantry, then we should revise the existing SD and TD values - and the names assigned to the different units.

[Desert Dave]

One of the most coherent

And well organized commentaries

I've ever read on this here board.

What you'd prefer is NOT quite in default game,

Tho,

Who knows?

Maybe Hubert will read this superior analysis

And be convinced.

IF he's not,

As I am not - too much "micro"

To suit me,

Well,

Given the new!

And greatly expanded Editor :cool:

I am very sure you can almost EXACTLY

Replicate what is yer after.

Has to do with ability to edit

Not only - hard, dice-roll

Kind of combat target values,

But with... well,

Given the NDA I'd better let you yerself

See how it can be done.

Here pretty soon I'm guessing.

[SeaMonkey]

ev, I won't argue the rationale of your perspective, as it is specific and subjective, and I agree with much of its premise.

But this is SC, an abstraction simulated to be akin to an historical occurrence, WW2, in a game format. Very non-specific in scale.

The subjective nature of your ideas assume a defensive deployment strategy and even though that can be accomplished in SC, it is not always the case.

I agree with the deployment in structured configurations whether in defensive or offensive modes, but to say that an attack pattern would not likely suffer greater casualties when pre-empted by a bombardment is a bit of a stretch, especially if there are more numerous targets.

Since we are not able to allocate a unit in a tile to a specific deployment, other than the use of a prepared fortification or by maintaining a position, who's to say that a portion of the troops in that tile are not in an exposed arrangement?

Army and corps represent pretty large formations and the specific deployment throughout an area designated by the SC tile is left to subordinate commanders as an abstraction.

Think of an army group of SC(5 or 6 units) as one unit, then you can imagine multiple echelons with different mission oriented elements, supported by a command structure(HQ). Imagine they are all in one big tile, that is what we essentially have in a SC unit, be it labelled an army, corps, whatever.

HC has given you the tools to specifically satisfy your whims, use them. It is not important if I or anyone else agrees with your theories, they are yours, exercise them, and we will have fun playing your mod.

Presently I believe our SC product adequately portrays the historical dynamics of WW2, not perfectly, but getting there, and that includes the army vs corps relationship.

But let's test it, your ideas have merit.

[ August 18, 2007, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Blashy]

It would would require coding to make units available at 20 strength.

In terms of what the editor can do:

You can increase all defensive values of armies by tripling it and doubling it for ALL countries that have 1 CTV defensive values. (some are still at 1).

You can reduce the offensive CTVs equal to corps.

And keep them at 1 less action point.

Keep them at the same price.

But this changes armies into a defensive only unit.

Since as we have it now countries can build tons of armies and do so because they can be used defensively/offensively. To compensate you could simply divide by 50% the number of Armies one can build. You then take that removed 50% divided by 3 and increase by that number the maximum corps one can build, rounded up.

Ex: Russia can build 14 corps and 18 Armies. 18 divided by 2 is 9 armies so Russia can now only build 9 armies. The 9 left are again divided by 3, which is 3, you add that to their maximum corps and they now can build 17 Corps. Divide by 3 because one Army represents 3 Corps (hence the tripling of all defensive CTVs from 1 to 3)

Germany: 20 Corps, 14 Armies to 22 Corps, 7 Armies

USA: 4 Corps, 6 Armies to 6 Corps, 2 Armies

Italy: 5 Corps, 5 Armies to 7 Corps, 2 armies

UK: 10 Corps, 5 Armies to 12 Corps, 2 armies.

Do I prefer they could be reduced in Half allowable builds, give them the save CTVs as a Corps, 1 less action point and give them 20 points to start with at 200mpps? Yes, but as I said it would require more code.

Very good post "ev" .

[targul]

Not knowing how exactly the game calculates damage given and recieved I am question this hypothesis.

Does a corps due the same or less damage then an army?

Is the size of the unit a determining factor in amount of damage received? or issued?

Many games factor in organization size into the equation but I do not know in this game but I think it does.

[arado234]

Wouldnt depend also on the country in question?Each major country had different weapons allocations to the various units in the corps or army.The elite SS formations usually had more and better equipment than most of the regular army formations.

[targul]

I am sure that is true. But within that parimeter the question seems to be if the organization size is corretly allocated.

[SeaMonkey]

ev you could set up a short scenario with armies at 10 strength vs all other units at 5 max.

It could be the test template you're looking for.

[targul]

Good idea SM.

[Desert Dave]

It would would require coding to make units available at 20 strength.

In terms of what the editor can do:

No, actually I'll stand by my assertion

That ev can indeed

Replicate the alternate paradigm

He'd like to have.

Very near - precisely.

I have done it, he can do it,

It's really rather simple,

Merely a few clicks,

So he don't gotta worry

About having to perform some

Tortured, time-consuming secret rite.

Nobody does. :cool:

[... AI scripting is a BIT tougher,

but not outside the capabilities

of yer everyday average gamer]

Also, pardon,

But you have omitted quite a lot

(... perhaps, as me, due to NDA? )

WRT just what the Editor CAN do,

Insofar as relative combat values

For - ANY kind of unit.

Not merely the Willie & Joe

Slog-along sort of dog-soldiers.

I can relate to them kind,

E-5 on down, now

That's what it takes

To win ANY war,

Undeclared, with "just-cause," or O/W.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

ev you could set up a short scenario with armies at 10 strength vs all other units at 5 max.

It could be the test template you're looking for.

No so because units with lower strength have reduced morale and readiness and this affects their combat values.

Only a unit with 10 strength can get 100% readiness and morale.

[SeaMonkey]

I guess that means no manipulation of the algorithms?

[targul]

Bah no test. I was interested in this thread.

[ev]

Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

ev you could set up a short scenario with armies at 10 strength vs all other units at 5 max.

It could be the test template you're looking for.

No so because units with lower strength have reduced morale and readiness and this affects their combat values.

Only a unit with 10 strength can get 100% readiness and morale. </font>

[pzgndr]

Have one main infantry corps ... Create new unit

Maybe have one main infantry corps and another generic corps. Like maybe 3-3 and 2-3 infantry corps, and 1-3 corps for garrison or replacements or whatever. And maybe call it, say, A3R?

[SeaMonkey]

Actually ev I like the idea of no Army units, everything would be corps size, excepting the smaller specialty units.

One problem is unit density. That could be overcome with a larger map, but it does become laborious in the late game with so many units to keep up with.

The one aspect of SC A3R that I disliked was the unit density, it just isn't conducive to fast and furious gameplay......well fast anyway.

[Desert Dave]

I would wait until youse fast-draw Cats

Actually see?

What that new Editor is capable of?

Before enny ultimate decision making, ah, well

That's just me,

How I'd do.

BTW: Bill's A3R is, literally

And figuratively - a masterpiece

Of design and function.

His AI innovations are second to none.

I would recommend it for ANYONE

Who has ever played Third Reich

THE board-game - in any

Of it's 4 iterations.

Even if you've NOT had the pleasure

Of playing THE BEST war-game

EVER made.

[SeaMonkey]

Yeah DD, I can't wait to get my hands on that campaign in solo mode. I know Bill has exceeded all of our expectations.

And speaking of, there is another that deserves accolades of thunder, down under, where those hot desert Khamsins rule.

Eagerly awaiting its scope of play also.

[Desert Dave]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Yeah DD, I can't wait to get my hands on that campaign in solo mode. I know Bill has exceeded all of our expectations.

And speaking of, there is another that deserves accolades of thunder, down under, where those hot desert Khamsins rule.

Eagerly awaiting its scope of play also.

Hope you ain't gone be disappointed Brad.

You shouldn't be!

It was you who helped put together

Them there OOB's! :cool:

[... always like to giv credit where

and when it's due... insofar as you

KNOW who did what, O/W "collective

UN-con-science" - RE: Carl Jung -

pursuit, suits me... it's that

honor code kinda thang ]

[ August 20, 2007, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[pzgndr]

The one aspect of SC A3R that I disliked was the unit density, it just isn't conducive to fast and furious gameplay......well fast anyway.

And that's one of the great trade-offs we face. Fast and furious gameplay with abstractions to allow that, or more detail and complexity and the increased time required to play a game. I'm wondering what MWiF is going to be like when it's released next year...

Hubert has found a sweet spot for fast and furious, and fun. I've been pushing the editor for something a little more complex. Others have been using the editor to develop some very nice operational campaigns.

It all goes back to what the comprehensive editor offers: make your own map, customize your own units, script a challenging AI, and basically create the game of your dreams. :cool:

[SeaMonkey]

More than just a sweet spot Bill, HC has set the baseline for ETO, all others are judged against SC and IMO seem lacking.

I'm thinking MWIF will be too engrossing for my ADD, but may give it a try.

Thanks DD, glad I could be of assistance, but let's not over inflate my contribution. You have taken HC lessons and created your own artform as has Bill, looking forward to being a consumer.