To better Emulate Ebb and flow

[bloodstar]

A few thoughts on the idea of prebuying

offensives (or attacks) at the beginning of

a season (4 times a year, this phase happens)

- Attacks and offensives should cost MMPs

a - those offensives should be pre bought at the

beginning of a season (spring summer etc

b - attacks supported by a HQ unit should cost

less than unites attacking independantly

c - offensives bought 'on the fly' or impromptu

should cost more.

d - Everyone but the Soviets should pay double

to conduct offensives during the winter

season.

e - Minor countries get free offensives each

season equal to the total number of

resource hexes (capitols, oil fields, etc)

in their country

f - all unspent offensives are lost at the

end of the season

g - Inititive (who goes first each turn)

can be determined by which side has more

offensives bought up. (Soviets count as

allied for this purpose) (Minor country

offensives do not count for this purpose)

This forces a player to plan ahead and to

strategize how he or she is going to spend the

next 3 months. It also forces the player to

divert some resources (upwards of 10 percent)

of their income towards conducting war offensives

it also better helps simulate the Soviets

having an advantage during the winter months.

which could help offset the German steamroller

effect.

Minor countries would then have an additional

usefulness. their units would be able to operate

independantly of a major country and actually

do things without cost. if one wished to

limit the usefulness of the minor countries

only permit their free offensives to take place

within the confines of their borders.

Have a pecarious situation, and need to go

first to reinforce your position? then spend

the MMPs to make sure you're first to act.

sure, it could cost you a unit. But if it

means you save a defensive position, that

could be much more valuble down the line.

The start of a scenario could have preset

numbers of offensives etc. or even let that

be a phase zero of a new game.

Maybe it can make it into SC 3, but I really

think adding a simple item like this into the

game can add an entire dimension of strategy

and planning.

-Mark

[ January 23, 2006, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: bloodstar ]

[santabear]

I have a couple of questions:

1. What is the difference between this system and the current system in which you buy units to conduct the offensive? Even more, the possession of cities to get the units operated in becomes critical.

2. Is the notion that you have to buy the units PLUS pay for the offensive?

Thanks,

SB

[Edwin P.]

Too complex for me. To a certain extent prepostioning your HQ units prepares you for an offensive, and given their lack of mobility you generally have to operate HQ units to shift HQ support along a front.

Though I can see where something like this would make sense for a more tactical level game - kinda like the initiative chits used in wargames that control how many units you can move that turn.

[bloodstar]

santabear:

1. What is the difference between this system and the current system in which you buy units to conduct the offensive? Even more, the possession of cities to get the units operated in becomes critical.

2. Is the notion that you have to buy the units PLUS pay for the offensive?

****

1) the system would mean that your units cannot attack without paying a cost. It would enable strategic bombing to play a significant role in disrupting C^3. Particularly if MMPs are lost during a bombing and someone has run out of offensives that were pre bought.

2) yes, you would need to pay for both. Units represent the men. the MMPs spent on the offensive represent the munitions, the gas, and the logistics of attacking.

From Edwin:

Too complex for me. To a certain extent prepostioning your HQ units prepares you for an offensive, and given their lack of mobility you generally have to operate HQ units to shift HQ support along a front.

Though I can see where something like this would make sense for a more tactical level game - kinda like the initiative chits used in wargames that control how many units you can move that turn.

***

Oddly I view it as more of a grand strategy concept than tactical. you have to look and think ahead for the next three months what you're going to do. If your enemy catches with your pants down, then really, your pants are down. it's expensive to recover when you haven't prepared. Logisticly any counter attacks when you're not prepared for an invasion should be expensive to cobble together.

from a game standpoint I think it adds as much complexicity as diplomacy chits and having to rebuy research. I suppose I'm spoiled, but I think it has a certain elegance to it from a game playing standpoint. It gives the players a chance to control 'who goes first' rather than blindly alternating turns.