A New (more realistic) SC Supply Model

[SeaMonkey]

With the advent of a RR(road/rail) network for WaW is it time for a new SC supply model based upon the criteria used in our old boardgames?

WiF model comes to mind. My research shows that our SC engineers should be able to construct a RR infrastructure in a clear tile in 3 SC turns (300 miles/year).

That would leave the faster construction rates inherent into the weather patterns that allowed increased efficiency.

Since forests and desert require greater time constraints, how about 4 turns, and 6 for swamps/mountains. That would be 3 tiles, 150 miles in one year gametime through swamp/mountain tiles. Should it be higher?

Of course if the supporting city/village on the RR line is bombed to below 50% efficiency then all construction stops.

Now HQs would still operate accordingly but they would now have to trace a tile path to a RR whose level of efficiency would be based upon the level of the last city/village it traversed through or the highest of either end.

Obviously this is a rough sketch, but before we get too specific, is it worth the effort?

[Liam]

This may be difficult to model into Strategic Command, as the supply system would have to be uprooted. However, it would be far more realistic. Though one begs to ask is the system itself flawed? In regions and in ways, it is. Supply is either too great or too small, but it is an abstract quality in the game.

Roads and Rails would have been extremely difficult to construct in various portions of Europe, especially in Scandanavia, parts of Russia, North Africa, MiddleEast any real high mountains. Construction would've taken years...

I prefer an existing system in which our Engineers or MPPs can be utilized to improve whats there as really in WW2, what new roads were constructed? None that I'm aware that didn't currently exist.....or that were utilized, as the new highly mobile units were often all terrain...

P.S. Many bridges were created, some in Asia, some in Western Europe, makeshift...Even Normandy had a Road to it FROM ENGLAND! The USSR was rumoured to have built roads to invade Germany and so on, but I'd prefer that Engineer units give bonuses to existing units crossing Rivers or Rough Terrain... Abstractly representing the enhancement of their equipment, knowhow, etc... That itself would do it for me, perhaps even Offer a Supply increase to the HQ and it's subordinates

[pzgndr]

Though one begs to ask is the system itself flawed? In regions and in ways, it is. Supply is either too great or too small, but it is an abstract quality in the game.

Is it flawed? Now that's subjective. If one asks if the supply model is realistic and accurate, well no it isn't. If one asks if it is adequate for this level of abstraction in a game, well it probably is OK.

Being abstract, it provides some supply where needed. Players can then make a command decision to enhance local supply (however you want to interpret this) by using their HQs. This is simple and works well. If you want to get complicated and worry about rail conversion rates in Russia for tracing supply or overseas supply rates and captured port capacities, stuff that would really make a difference for realism and accuracy, then that quickly gets difficult.

With the new roads and railroads in SC2-WaW, players should find some new options to consider. How to cut your opponent's supply lines, how to defend yours, etc. This has always been an element, but now there are specific tiles to focus on.

If I could have just one thing added to bring back the flavor of the classic boardgame rules, it would be mech/armor ZOCs that better block supply paths and op moves. The current adjacent enemy units movement penalty just doesn't do it well enough.

[SeaMonkey]

So Bill you want more rigid ZoCs? I can see the rationale of that, but with 50 mile tiles and knowing that mobile forces are not efficient at holding ground unless they make the transition to a defensive status, I'm skeptical of the application.

Better left to the ground pounders with numerous personnel like Armies, let them have the characteristic of closing the pockets with rigid ZoCs. That will provide them with an additional deserved uniqueness.

You could implement a rigid ZoC with units (corps, armies & TGs) that remain in their occupied tile for one turn as a form of creating that defensive stance just as they enter into entrenchment levels.

As far as supply, you can see that I'm not suggesting a detailed upgrade, just the next step.

That has kind of been the MO of the SC engine, a slow evolution of the mechanics to more realism without the loss of its finely tuned abstraction.

[pzgndr]

My point is the adjacent units penalty isn't enough. In many cases unless you completely surround a tile or pocket, on your opponent's turn supply and op moves can often be reestablished through gaps in the tiles. This has been a common complaint among players. With the old boardgame rules, you could use armor with greater effectiveness to isolate the enemy. I think there's an opportunity to strengthen the existing penalty for mech/armor units only, unless the enemy units are mech/armor in which case things could cancel out.

This should not be a radical change. With morale rules, even with supply cut off units still have supply for a while. Mech/armor should have some distinct ZOC advantage which is currently lacking.

[jon_j_rambo]

If you want more realism:

1) ZOC (Zone of Control) --- There should be a much bigger movement penalty.

2) Operands --- A complete joke. You are entrenched or nearly surrounding, yet can leave the scene with ease. Don't care about the MMP stuff, because money can't buy everything. Why should morale decrease? Rather, mine would increase if I was surrounded & going to die.

3) Railroads --- You can't build railroads without a LOT of wood. The State of Michigan was cut clear to build the original system here in the USA.

4) Cheap Dead Units --- Probably the dumbest thing about SC-2. I fight, I die...I resurrect at 50% of the cost. You kidding me? Training, equipment, parts, supply chains, officers needed, etc. No way!

5) Loss of experience --- It's dumb how you have an experience unit, it gets whacked some, yet the green units destory the overall experience to an extreme level.

[Retributar]

jon_j_rambo... Im with you on your argument 'buddy', i see these concern's as not as overall overly serious impediment's in the game, "BUT!!!"... these so mentioned item's/point's need to be attended too!,...for 'CORRECTION-PURPOSES'!. "Especially...your last point"!.

[pzgndr]

For #1, I tried increasing the adjacent unit penalty from +1 to +2. What happened was infantry could't move during bad weather, to advance into a tile with 2 adjacent enemy units or to withdraw from many situations. Not good. The penalty should really only apply to tiles between 2 enemy units (ie, gaps), not just any 2 adjacent enemy units. Hard to explain but hopefully you get the picture. If this could get fixed, then a bigger movement penalty would be good. And here too mech/armor could have some special abilities.

For #2 and #4, these parameters are now editable in SC2-WaW.

For #3 railroads can be damaged and repaired, but not built during a game.

[SeaMonkey]

Some good comments, a rarity for Rambo.

ZoCs: I kind of like the way they are presented currently with an additional 1 AP required to move through a tile that has 2 units exerting influence. We have 2500 sq. mi tiles and a minimum of one week elapsed time, think about that.

When you possess motorization level two the opportunity to provide wide sweeping envelopments comes to fruition, as it should be.

I repeat........, mobile forces are notorious for not providing an unporous border of envelopment. Larger forces with heavy assets are more suitable for that role. ie. SC Armies. History will bear this out.

I would prefer that the units have the unique properties for not only realistic behavior but also to propagate the rock-paper-scissors scenario.

Sorry JJR, your 4 and 5 although having some supporting evidence are too extreme. The 50% initial cost represents the surviving cadre, usually the officers and NCOs, but I'll give you that they should not appear in half the time through the build Q. Experience is about right, just don't be so indiscriminate with your good units use.

Completely agree with the way operands are handled, but that will change with WaW.

Obviously we are very close to WaW release and really anything we care to promote at this phase is a bit premature and subject to change.

Its always good to kick around some ideas but I'm thinking that once we've had WaW experience and the modding crowd has pushed the editor's envelop, not to mention a vacation for Hubert to reinvigorate his creative nature, it will be time to take the engine to the Pacific.

[Retributar]

Yaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!.... [For Real I Hope!],... Da PACIFIC-"AT LAAAAASSSSSTTTTT!!!!!".