Encirclements and morale

[borsook]

After playing quite a few games, I must say that these are the two things that have a really lacking representation in the game. This is especially apparent when one plays a Barbarossa, typically units fight until their strength drops to 0, instead of giving up, and making a successful encirclement (i.e. one that the enemy cannot move out of) requires tremendous amounts of troops (this is partially because of tiles not hexes being used). And even if one manages to create such a pocket still capitulation of the forces within it is not to be expected. All this makes the SC2 combat (while very fun) resemble WW1 more than WW2. Comments will be appreciated.

[realdeal]

With motorization lvl 2 and 2 paratrooper unit, it's much easier to do.

[Guest Mike]

Units out of supply are much easier to get down to 0 strength - what more is needed? (apart from hexes of course...)

[borsook]

Originally posted by realdeal:

With motorization lvl 2 and 2 paratrooper unit, it's much easier to do.

The speed is not an issue, it is, in my opinion, rightly modeled. The problem is that even 2:1 force ratio is not enough

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Units out of supply are much easier to get down to 0 strength - what more is needed? (apart from hexes of course...)

Not having to fight them? Have a look at 1941 Russia campaign, in the Kursk battle alone Germany captured 665,000 prisoners. That's equivalent of 10 game's units being surrounded and giving up. I can not how the current system comes close to modeling this. Not to mention that will they be out of supply on their next turn? And unable to move out?

[arado234]

borsook i dont know if you have ever played third reich,but in that game any encircled units die if they arenot broken out.I think it would work great in this game except third reich turns are one month long and these turns are one week(i believe).

If you could keep units cutoff for one month then yes i would like to see something along these lines happen.Something like their strength starts dropping 2 per turn down to a min. of 1.

[jon_j_rambo]

Surrounding units just isn't significant in this game. Simple as that. If you have the advantage, attack the positions of least defense (not entrenched).

Actually, combat is rather lame...attack with power, then stuff corps in the way for protection from counter.

Yes, I like hexes better.

The tactical part of SC-2 is okay. It still seems like a mob or riot though.

I don't care for the reduced purchase price thing either...you can have all the MMPs in the world, but that doesn't give you unlimited manpower.

[Guest Mike]

Boorsok it depends what you call "having to fight them".

If you have low quality rusian units at het start of Barbarossa then surrounding and killing them should be easy - which is IMO an effective simulation of vast surrenders IMO.

If the units are higher quality then yuo have to fight harder, which is again an adequate simulation of them not surrendering easily.

At Kiev in 1941 (I presume you mean this for Kursk?) for example the Russians did not simply surrender as soon as they were encircled - the pocket took a couple of weeks of hard fighting to finally eliminate, and 3 whole German armies were involved in reducing it (2, 6, 17) - not quite as simple a situation as you seem to be suggesting

Of course SC2 doesn't do the initial quality of Sov units and commanders very well.......but making low aulity units collapse under relatively minor attacks is perfectly reasonable as a game mechanism for simulating surrender.

there's nothing worse in a game than a player getting vast amounts of enemy units disappearing without having to make some effort to ensure they do so - that's just lazy thinking IMO.

I agree that the SC2 system doesn't do it well btw - but then it's not supposed to be a super-accurate simulation of WW2 - it's more a super-Panzer-Gernal-on-steroids kind of game IMO - fun, but don't let it fool you into thinking it's WW2!! :cool:

JJR - are you starting to have deep and meaningful thoughts about game design? I don't think I've ever seen you make such profound comments before!!

[ August 23, 2007, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Iron Ranger]

For purely the starting question, its due to map size. If you want SC2 with more the 'Encircle' feature try one of the mod's with much larger map. Its a Stratic game after all, not tatical as your asking it to be (Sounds like the expasion will be more tactical in nature).

Edit: Also our Star Trek Transporter (Operate) makes large encirclements hard. If units have enough supply you can always zap them out of any trap or tough siuation. Play with Railheads On as something different.

[ August 23, 2007, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Iron Ranger ]

[targul]

I doubt there are really very many tile fans. Really unsure why this game decided to use them in lieu of hexes. It does harm the surrounding effect significantly and make supply near impossible to determine. Makes air a real bear to determine how far it will go also.

But there is one factor I had never considered which was mentioned on another board concering tiles. In the actual military there maps are basically tiles not hexes. This indicates if you are looking for realism tiles would be more accurate.

I have therefore determined I shall try and learn to use the archaic tile verses the modern hex. Doubt I will ever learn to like them but maybe I can learn to live with them.

As to surrender that is a tough one most troops surrounded in all armies have failed to surrender simply because of supply. It has always taken much more to convince them to do that. Only game I can remember that does that is Third Reich.

I assume the troops in most armies fail to surrender because of lack of supplies for reasons beyond food and ammo. Most men will fight for there country right or wrong. It is rare that armies are formed of all conscripts unwilling to fight but forced to do so. Those men I would suspect would surrender quickly but all others have more to lose. They are fighting for their homes, families and reputations. These things are significantly more important then bullets or food.

[borsook]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

At Kiev in 1941 (I presume you mean this for Kursk?) for example the Russians did not simply surrender as soon as they were encircled - the pocket took a couple of weeks of hard fighting to finally eliminate, and 3 whole German armies were involved in reducing it (2, 6, 17) - not quite as simple a situation as you seem to be suggesting

I am not saying it was an easy battle for German part (after all significant amount of troops from group army Center had to be send in) I just mean that currently this big a pocket is impossible in SC2 with the historical force ratio. Especially as the movement/supply for the surrounded units should be blocked for more than one turn.

Originally posted by targul:

[QB]

As to surrender that is a tough one most troops surrounded in all armies have failed to surrender simply because of supply. It has always taken much more to convince them to do that. Only game I can remember that does that is Third Reich.

HOI1/2 models this quite correctly too - surrounded units slowly lose STR and are destroyed (i.e. surrender) when forced to retreat. BTW this is the main problem, and why I say SC2 seem to model WW1 better than WW2 - units of corps/army size are constantly destroyed in combat in SC2, in real life the only situation when this was possible was surrounding them... By the by - maybe this all means that it would be good to do a WW1 mod for SC2?

[Desert Dave]

It is rare that armies are formed of all conscripts unwilling to fight but forced to do so. Those men I would suspect would surrender quickly but all others have more to lose.

LOL.

Think back, oh, about 40 odd yrs now.

Did we have all mercenary Army then?

LOL.

[Blashy]

The only way a unit is destroyed in SC2 is if you kill it when it has 0 of supply.

If you kill it with 5 or better supply you can buy it back at 60% less cost which simulates troops that have retreated.

[jon_j_rambo]

I never bought into this "ghost retreat" based on supply. Big deal, you have supply 5 when blasted, so you get resurrected at 60% less cost, DUMB.

How about simulating a unit getting blasted & going straight to Hell? You could have supply 10, be eating from an unlimited stack of cheeseburgers, knocking down a Mountain Dew, and have a clip full of ammo....but when your number is up, it's up. When the bullet enters your brain, the amount of food in your belly doesn't determine a 60% resurrection! Die hungary, die full, has nothing to do with rebuilding same unit. There's a thing called manpower pool for a country. Troops shouldn't come back that quickly with same abilities. Takes time to train green troops. Troops should start green.

-Too Much Legend, Too Little Time (sounds like an Elvis movie)

-The American Dream

-The Legend

-The name of Entertainment in SC-1/SC-2

-The Crowd Favorite

-Camp Rambo

-Captain of Team USA

[Hubert Cater]

Just wanted to mention that with the new rail rules, i.e. units can only Operate from a rail tile, chances are it will be easier encircle units on the Soviet front. Reason being is that you no longer need to completely cut a unit off to prevent it from Operating to safety... now you just need to cut the rail line and as a result players will probably have to be a little more careful with how they set their front lines etc.

[borsook]

Originally posted by Blashy:

The only way a unit is destroyed in SC2 is if you kill it when it has 0 of supply.

If you kill it with 5 or better supply you can buy it back at 60% less cost which simulates troops that have retreated.

Ok, good point. Though this is an extremely abstract way to simulate retreating (though hospital recovery fits better into this abstraction). So the engine does see the point of encirclement, but still does not provide adequate means of achieving it.

[Guest Mike]

But there is one factor I had never considered which was mentioned on another board concering tiles. In the actual military there maps are basically tiles not hexes. This indicates if you are looking for realism tiles would be more accurate.

Thats so you can easily give map references - in TEWT's (Tactical exercises without troops - what our military used to call wargames...) formations were small, and essentially only occupied 1 6 figure grid reference - not 60km square....

[targul]

Of course that is why they use squares I know that I was an FO. My point is they are used in the military and not hexes. Do I like tiles hell no. But I need to justify these tiles somehow or I will complain forever.

BTW Hubert's point about rails may make much of the argument unnecessary. If supply can be controlled in a manner that is apporopriate instead of how it is now.

[Moonslayer]

I am one of the 'prefer tiles' school as hexes tended to get clogged up far too easily but tiles allow for a more fluid battlefront imho.

However, horses for courses.

Encirclements are harder but not impossible. The high losses experienced by the defenders does, imo, represent the large numbers of surrendering troops.

[SeaMonkey]

Count me as a supporter too, Moonslayer, good abstract logic.

Something we could use a little more of around here.

[Guest Mike]

yes some logic would be good...

[Exel]

Originally posted by borsook:

The speed is not an issue, it is, in my opinion, rightly modeled. The problem is that even 2:1 force ratio is not enough

I've done it even with 1:1 odds, although that was in the Middle East where there is space to maneuver. Against a more contiguous front it's harder, but still possible. In such a case you need to both to outnumber and outrun the enemy - and that's the way it should be.

Attacks on prepared enemy positions have commonly required 3:1 odds to be pulled of successfully, so it's not unreasonable. Moreover, if you don't outnumber the enemy, how do you expect to keep them encircled even in real life?

[Baron]

Desert Dave -

I enlisted because I felt I had an obligation to my country- to the men who fought for my freedoms and rights, and so my children could enjoy the this country like I have.

I reenlisted for totally other reasons my obligation to my friends, no my brothers whom I have fought with and who know they can trust me when the sh*t hits the fan. I’m 40 years old and the closest friends I have are all men I’ve served with in Iraq.

I’m a “weekend warrior” with 18 months of combat under my belt in two deployments – a father of three, an employee of the local school system, and an SOB when I upset the wife – what I am not is a mercenary . You should choose your words more wisely our resident poet

[Guest Mike]

Mercenary = soldier who gets paid - even if fighting for ones own country.

The connotations of fighting for someone else for money are very recent - basically since hte 60's.

Being a mercenary has been an honourable occupation for thousands of years.

[Baron]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the conscripts of 40 years ago paid also?

[Guest Mike]

I'm not sure how much the USSR paid the men it rounded up from liberated territories in 1943-44, or how much Mao paid conscripted peasants in the Red Army in the 1940's.....but generally soldiers ahve received pay since late medieval times, so can be defined as mercenary in the classical sense - the term dates from times when conscripts or levies were not paid, and were required to provide their own sustenance as well as weapons, etc.

Changing times have led to changing definitions.....