Should corps/armies soft attack be reduced by 1?

[Blashy]

Currently a Corps is 2 soft attack and 1 soft defense.

Armies are 3 soft attack and 2 soft defense.

I would like to see corps and armies reduced by one.

a) Corps would not be the troop to go for only and no one buying armies, since Armies would now have 100% the punch (2 attack to 1 attack) while at the moment they only have 50% more power (3 vs. 2).

when units achieve level 2-3 IW, the damage would be slightly less which would be better overall.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Most other games like SC2 give a defensive advantage

to infantry (tho when you figure in entrenchment in

our game they do anyway, until knocked down to 0 of

course). It might slow down the offensive-biased

wars we seem to have...

[Blashy]

The offensive bias is not really an issue for me, more so is the use of corps and corps and MORE corps and then when people run out they take armies, oh no I forgot, they take tanks.

It should not be this way, armies should have double the firepower.

But yes, reducing their overall firepower would also reduce the situation you mention.

[Scook]

Not a bad idea, my thought for buying corps vs armies early is having enough troopers to go to war with Russia, and corps fit that role nicely. If you want me to go with armies, I need the money to buy them earlier, or else I am sticking with corps, and buying armies when I can afford to do so.

[Blashy]

That's good, that becomes a planning decision.

But most players just use up all the corps because in terms of firepower they are not that far off armies yet armies are double the cost.

So now armies will have double the value in attack/defense.

So a mix will probably be a good idea, because we know those Russians have armies .

[SeaMonkey]

You still have the reduced cost of corps upgrades vs armys that also make purchasing corps more attractive.

Would you rather have a 3,3,2, corps or a 0,0,1 army?

Then there is the mobility/AP advantage, not to mention the rebuild and build times/costs.

Perhaps a 3 attack and defense base for armies and maybe a terrain defense bonus also. In actuality, armies usually equal 3 corps and have more attached assets, why not represent reality?

[Yogi]

I agree that the armies should have at least twice the strength of corp.

I would also like to see mechanized infantry.

[KG]

If everyone uses Corps instead of Armies, increase the cost of Corps and decrease the cost of Armies. Maybe 10-15%. Simple as that.

[Blashy]

As it stands an army is twice as powerfull as a corps overall, with the new settings.

Now the only thing is that corps have a mobility advantage.

I'm already seeing a difference in my mod.

Although since corps have the mobility advantage, that still gives a better performance for the price.

A corps is 100 and army is 200, the army is twice as powerfull in my mod, so this evens out.

Mobility, the corps have the advantage.

In terms of build time, the Army is better off IMO, 3 turns for a corps, but 1 extra turn for a unit that has double the firepower.

Does it even out? I don't think so, mobility is MUCH more valuable than the turn lengths.

What about reality? How much firepower did an army have versus a corps? Was it as much as SeaMonkey states, 3 corps = 1 army? Corps had more mobility because of not carrying heavy weapons (artillery, light armored vehicles, etcc...)

So the issue is really how much firepower in terms of soft defense and attack should an army have? All other settings are find IMO, the armies have double.

Should it be more than twice JUST for offense or both?

[KG]

Actually if you look at the damage equations you will see that at times(entrench level of 1, defense level of 1) a standard Army(attack 3) when attacking dishes out more than twice the damage than a standard Corps(attack 2). At other times(no entrench, no defense value) the damage doled out is only 50% more.

Thus just because 3 is 50% more than two doesn't mean that an army is only 50% more powerful, its actually much more when the actual damage equations are taken into account. Changing the cost of each unit is a better way to change the purchase pattern without upsetting the game.

[Agamemnon]

I buy corps because it's more bang for the buck. Many times I don't have the MMP's to buy an army. So it's buy a corps or nothing. Also I like the mobility of corp's.

When you have high tech armys, they are very expensive.

[Scook]

During WWII, armies (except in very rare circumstances) consisted of 2-5 corps, with 3 and 4 being the most common size. To complicate it further, you have differing TO&E, coming from Corps assets, and attached units. So, an army would generally have a lot more firepower than a corps.

sidenote: I am leaning towards mech infantry vs. rockets. That is a unit that does make sense, and it give the AT value of inf a reason to be used a lot more.

[hellraiser]

Clearly armies should have at least double the firepower of a corps yet less mobility (as it is now). A nice addition would be an improved ability of experienced units. To me, experience should matter a lot more.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

And experience is difficult to maintain... it takes ages to get a unit to 13, but you can loose it quickly..

[Colin I]

I think someone already said this but corps have extra command control costs (ie 1/5 or whatever of a coordinating HQ?).

BUT lots of activities require any unit or any ground unit (eg garrisons, taking Berlin if unoccupied, spotting) and for this Corps obviously will do the same job cheaper.

I think there are two possibilities. One is simply have a general ground unit and maybe then buy levels of strength to make it larger, mobility to make it faster and armour to make it a tank formation. Then if you do this, armour levels (or first level) must be more expensive as you aren't paying extra cost. Hell, why not add airborne levels (cost far more for armour) or engineering levels. Kind of like this (but maybe it screws simplicity of game (think not) and unit graphics (maybe not - just have to decide what levels give you a tank icon over a infantryman).

Otherwise, as things stand I buy corps as Axis because I never have enough units and a lot of your early opponents are weak. Would rather have armies cheaper than corps more expensive with current MPP balance.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

As I metioned a few montg earlier the next step in development is to create a unit where you can simply attach other smaller units to, i.e. attach 3 corps, one tank division, one anti-tank regiment and maybe an AA group to an army... the value of that army are the result of the units you are going to attach.. and the player can decide about the motorization level.

That would solve the garrison problem as well... just attach a single corps to the unit without anything else.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Hyazinth von Strachwitz:

As I metioned a few montg earlier the next step in development is to create a unit where you can simply attach other smaller units to, i.e. attach 3 corps, one tank division, one anti-tank regiment and maybe an AA group to an army... the value of that army are the result of the units you are going to attach.. and the player can decide about the motorization level.

That would solve the garrison problem as well... just attach a single corps to the unit without anything else.

Don't expect to see that in SC2, that would require A LOT of change to the core engine. We won't see that now that the game is released.

I think making Armies 10% cheaper is the best option, this way it would counter balance the bonus in mobility a corps unit has. So a corps is 100, an army would be 180.

[TaoJah]

I don't see the benefit of this, because everyone rushes to Advanced Infantry 3.

The difference between a corps and a army in your system will be 5-4 instead of the current 6-5. That difference is still neglectable.

[Sombra]

Still an improvement. I think a step in the right direction

[Blashy]

So far overall it is making the game slightly more realistic, in terms of overall damage.

Since overall damage is down, the battles last a little longer, these 0-4 damage vs. Polish units is now 0-3 when the game starts, so you need all your units if you wish to take Poland fast.

It feels more historical.

[KG]

Originally posted by Blashy:

So far overall it is making the game slightly more realistic, in terms of overall damage.

Since overall damage is down, the battles last a little longer, these 0-4 damage vs. Polish units is now 0-3 when the game starts, so you need all your units if you wish to take Poland fast.

It feels more historical.

Just means Jets are even more valuable, as well as Tanks.

[Scook]

So, did you drop the attack and defense by 1 for both corps and army, and make armies cost 180 instead of 200?

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

@ Blashy: yes, agreed.... I don´t expect that for SC2, but maybe for SC3 or SC4

[Blashy]

Armies are still at 200 in the most recent versin uploaded.

But, yes they should be 180.

Or remain at 200 but have a 3 for Soft Attack.

[SeaMonkey]

I'm voting for 200 MPPs and the 3 SA factor.

This should help defense, the counter-attacking kind, and keep those damn IW3 corps from swarming all over your armies.

It should also induce a semblance of combined arms as now you will need the armor in association with your corps when on sustained offensives to deal with these armies.

Well....its worth a test.