Engineers

[SeaMonkey]

I don't want to complicate this issue, but since we have the unit, is it possible to add some features, unique to its roll?

How about a special attack parameter that negates entrenchments or at least reduces them ala bombers, simulating mine clearance.

I like Blashy's idea on enhancing the armor attack value, but that's really for mods. Still I would be in favor of a readiness/morale reduction for defending units if attacked by engineers.

How about demolitions. For instance when an engineer unit is next to a resource, city, or port, it is allowed to apply scorched earth and then move away, like a strategic attack?

One more possibility, route preparation or assistance. An engineer next to a swamp, mountain, or river negates the AP effect on units traveling through.

Road and rail repair has been mentioned as another additional feature, are there others?

[Retributar]

I agree SeaMonkey!,... Engineer Unit 'Capabilities/Field Application throughput' should be enhanced so that an Engineer Unit will now 'act/be like' an actual Engineer Unit!.

[Edwin P.]

Agreed, now the engineers don't feel like an engineer unit.

Perhaps, allow engineers to sabotage a tile's road network. A sabatoged tile costs another unit;friendly or enemy,+2APs to move through and clear the roads.

Or, allow engineers to build a port that exists for 2 turns. Just long enough to land or evacuate a few units.

Or, allow engineers to rebuild a scorched city by increasing the recovery rate to +2 per turn, instead of +1.

[Guest Mike]

IMO engineers, as they are at the moment, should be scrapped.

They are combining 2 functions - front line combat engineers, and labour forces used to construct major fortifications.

Instead of these there should be just a labour force unit that can construct forts and has a seriously low combat value, with no reconstruction bonus if killed in supply (if that's possible) since it represents non-combat personnel.

It should have a moderate cost, representing the loss of production for taking those people out of the "normal" production system - probably between the cost of a corps & an army.

However it should be disbandable and should return its cost to the pool if that happens.

the combat functions of engineers are already subsumed within the proper combat units, and there is no case for having them seperated out at this scale.

[Timskorn]

Edwin, I like those concepts but I feel, as SO says, the Engineer unit should be scrapped. Possibly in favor of an upgrade to existing units instead, such as AI/AT/M levels are currently represented on Army/Corp units.

Units with engineering capabilities would be able to do the things you listed, and increasing their level would allow more options and/or increase their effectivess at doing such things (Such as rebuilding a city. At Level 1 Engineer, you can increase it by an additional 1 MPP/turn, but at Level 3 you can do it by 3).

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

I`d also dump the engineers... they are even more unrealistic than other unit. Here`s why:

(1) Fighting while operating a concrete mixer

Engineer have good fighting opportunites in this game, but Baugruppe Todt (who built the Atlantikwall) didn`t have any fighting skills at all. I think it`s simply impossible to deliver a good fight to an attacker while operating a concrete mixer.

Engineers in modern warfare are capable of building a pontoon bridge or a barbed wire fence, but there are always platoon-sized and attached to bigger units.. there has never ever been a corps-sized pure Engineer unit in WW2.

(2) Ressources

Once you bought the Engineers, you get all fortifications for free.. doesn`t make sense at all, because a fortification will cost you concrete, steel and workforce. Buying the engineer unit can be understood as buying the people and the machines, but where is the raw material? And SC2 is a game of ressources, isn`t it?

(3) Conclusion

I would dump the engineer unit.. these units have never been corps-sized fighting units in reality. It should be possible to simply build fortifications without engineers... pick the tile, choose the fortication, get informed about the price and time, and then simply buy it if needed. This avoids big fortifications over hundreds of miles without any cost.

[SeaMonkey]

As much as I like the units, SO and Timskorn have a good point.

Perhaps as an attachable asset as recommended here, maybe to an HQ unit and based on the level of "infrastructure" research category for different abilities.

An HQ unit with the "Egr" attachment would allow an additional entrenchment level per tile type for units in its command range. This would be in lieu of the fortification feature.

Come to think of it, maybe HC had that in mind as part of the HQs features anyway.

Maybe these conditional ideas should be at the mercy of MPP expenditures?

[Lars]

Hey, you need something to build the fortifications. Calling it an Engineer unit works as good as anything else.

I'm all in favor of adding more capabilities to the unit though. Making it the city/fortification nutcracker par excellence would be interesting. More in line with a combat engineer's usual functions. Also city/rail/road repair of course. As is, you start building grand Maginot type things as sometimes, there's nothing else really useful to do with it.

Decisions, decisions on where best to use it…

[Blashy]

There is always somewhere useful to build fortifications.

[Lars]

Not when you're on a roll.

Was speaking more of the end game. When you're going to win anyway, what to do with the engineers?

I usually end up with a line of forts that Vauban would have been proud of.

[Blashy]

But at that point many things are not useful.

Don't forget, they make good offensive troops.

[targul]

Deleting the engineers is just silly. Why should we want something as useful as the engineer be removed? Are they corps size no. But that doesnt mean they have no function.

I was once in a unit called the 15th Support Brigade (Crit). This was a brigade of engineers capable of deployment within 24 hours with complete TOE anywhere.

I remember the unit once deploying to Nam to do some construction. We were there for about a month completed the project and returned.

Sometimes only companies would be deployed sometime battalions but they were always ready for quick deployment to make airfields, supply dumps, fortifications or anything else the military might require rapidly.

Here we have a functioning unit that does not break the game or make it. It simply has a purpose of development of forts for us. I would like to see some more stuff for them to do but regardless I would not like to see them disappear.

[SeaMonkey]

Is anyone keeping score here?

Does it really matter?

Is HC listening?

Are there more comments, perspectives?

My conclusion is that Engineers in SC represent a specialty unit, not necessarily of the same size the combat units are.

This is about abstraction and application of a feature that had a paramount effect in WW2.....any war condition..IMO.

Its like Rockets which are really artillery bombarding from tiles 100s of miles away. Abstractly they are not 100s of miles away but are located in the rear echelons.

It is an effect simulated in an abstract way.

[Timskorn]

There's also the pressure to add more units to the game to increase its marketability. Gamers just like seeing a diverse set of units.

[Guest Mike]

I didn't say get rid of it - I said convert it into a specialist construction unit, and not a composite construction/combat unit.

If you want to use construction brigades as a model then fine - but they're much smaller than infantry corps. Or the Todt organisation - very large, but of no combat capability.

so both models have similar characteristics - they can build things....but at this scale they do not fight.

[jon_j_rambo]

Yep, different classes of ships, carriers, subs, name it. Throw it "Replacements", "Inexperienced", "Green", "Fanatics", "Marines", "SS", etc.

[Timskorn]

Would be an interesting concept to have an "Army Builder", so to speak, when creating your military units. When creating an Army you could have sliders to designate it to have 75% green, 25% veteran troops or vice versa. Just increase the time it takes to bring the unit onto the field depending on how experienced it is.

Not as cool as full-fledged "new" unit types though.

[Guest Mike]

There are all sorts of things that could be done in the background - for example making it harder for the Sov's to get good quality tank units because their population is not nearly as mechanised as the US or UK, so they have to train drivers from scratch - we tend to forget the human element in the rush to make T34's into super tanks in 1941......

[SeaMonkey]

Fascinating ideas. Perhaps a choice at build to allow an extra turn before appearance for a boost in morale and readiness....two turns?

Better yet, just let them remain in the queue, the longer after the minimum appearanc time the greater morale and readiness percent.

[arado234]

As far as making super tanks in 41, maybe if russia had spent every last dime on tank tech.early(which any of us can do if we want)they may have had a "super tank"alot earlier.Thats the atvantage of this game.You dont have to follow history because if we did alot of things that we do know wouldnt be allowed(which makes it fun in some ways).

[Timskorn]

I think most of us want historic plausibility, but not to be straightjacketed. Could Germany have made four Aircraft carriers between 1939 and 1942? Maybe, maybe not...but if you want to in SC2 you can. Might not be smart, but we have the choice and it clearly affects other areas.

Another area that can help out with the current units is added personalization, such as my example above. HC did a bit with that by adding the "Honors" button, but who really uses that? What if *I* could bestow the honors? Ie, medals, commendations and reduced upgrade costs?

One of the many beautiful things about the first two X-Com games was its ability to get you attached to good soldiers. Outfitting them with the best equipment, designating them the tough jobs. Say the 3rd Panzer Division enters Paris. Right now they get the Paris (year) honor. What if you could designate medals/commendations to that unit which would give it a permanent morale boost of say, 5%?

What about that unit that held onto Moscow after repeated air and armor attacks? Award them. Distinguish the unit. Seperate them from the rest for what they accomplished. On the unit graphic on the map, add a medal when they're honored. So when I see the 3rd Panzer Division rolling in with three medals on it, I'll know I'm facing some crack troops.

You could even go so far as to adding additional graphic layers to the existing ones, based on unit medals/honors/commendations. That 3rd Panzer Division with 3 medals and 2 bars of experience? Give 'em some camo instead of just "grey".

Or maybe when that US Corp. becomes experienced enough, you can upgrade them to a Ranger unit (with corresponding art) which gets a bonus vs. fortified positions.

Bah, its late and now I'm spraying wildly from the hip. Always fun to "toss" ideas around, anyway.

[jon_j_rambo]

I'd like to upgrade during production.

[arado234]

I second jjr.

[SeaMonkey]

How about another para unit for USA?

I know off topic but let's face it 4 divisions equal two units for ETO.

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Timskorn:

I think most of us want historic plausibility, but not to be straightjacketed. Could Germany have made four Aircraft carriers between 1939 and 1942? Maybe, maybe not...but if you want to in SC2 you can. Might not be smart, but we have the choice and it clearly affects other areas.

Another area that can help out with the current units is added personalization, such as my example above. HC did a bit with that by adding the "Honors" button, but who really uses that? What if *I* could bestow the honors? Ie, medals, commendations and reduced upgrade costs?

One of the many beautiful things about the first two X-Com games was its ability to get you attached to good soldiers. Outfitting them with the best equipment, designating them the tough jobs. Say the 3rd Panzer Division enters Paris. Right now they get the Paris (year) honor. What if you could designate medals/commendations to that unit which would give it a permanent morale boost of say, 5%?

What about that unit that held onto Moscow after repeated air and armor attacks? Award them. Distinguish the unit. Seperate them from the rest for what they accomplished. On the unit graphic on the map, add a medal when they're honored. So when I see the 3rd Panzer Division rolling in with three medals on it, I'll know I'm facing some crack troops.

You could even go so far as to adding additional graphic layers to the existing ones, based on unit medals/honors/commendations. That 3rd Panzer Division with 3 medals and 2 bars of experience? Give 'em some camo instead of just "grey".

Or maybe when that US Corp. becomes experienced enough, you can upgrade them to a Ranger unit (with corresponding art) which gets a bonus vs. fortified positions.

Bah, its late and now I'm spraying wildly from the hip. Always fun to "toss" ideas around, anyway.

Great ideas here Timskorn and I think it is stuff like this that would only enhance the game that much further