arado234 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Would it not make sense that if an engineer is in the construction mode and has to move away and the hex in question isnot attacked then shouldnt the engineer be able to move back and continue on with the construction instead of having to start all over again?The fortification work that had been done would still be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted February 8, 2009 Author Share Posted February 8, 2009 Imho we should be able to upgrade purchased units right before they are placed if upgrades became available while they were in the construction phase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Hi Arado234, Some good ideas and we just might consider these for down the road Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leolo Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Does anyone know why the number of sides in a fort is important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithel Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 My guess is that the number of sides to a fort is important for gaining it's benefits depending on the direction that it is being attacked from. I assume that if you are attacked from a direction that hasn't been built to protect you, then the only benefit of a fort is additional entrenchment. I agree, I feel "upgrades" developed during production of a unit should be available for purchase during production. Right now it's very "painful" to lose an entire turn to reinforce; upgrade; or elite reinforce at one point per turn! This is a great design (requiring time to pull a unit out of combat and let it rebuild it's strength) but having to lose a turn to upgrade a unit that has just been produced seems incorrect and frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leolo Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Appart from additional entrenchment, I don't know what other benefits a unit placed on a fort tile can get. Since the additional entrenchment does not depend on the number of sides, I don't see where the importance of the number of sides is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithel Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Look at the "properties" of a fort and notice the defense bonuses. I assume that if attacked from a non-fortified side, those defense bonuses will not apply. Thus the extremely high importance to which sides are fortified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 Mithel is correct.If you attack the fort from a non-fort side then you dont recieve all the benefits of the fort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Does this apply to air attacks? I seem to remember that mt German fighters seemed to benefit from fortifications even though it was an interception or a straight out air attack on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithel Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 That's an interesting question! I really don't think air units should benefit from a fortification in the case of an air attack against them. Perhaps someone could confirm how this works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 If the air unit is grounded and entrenched, it will gain the advantage of entrenchment effects if attacked by any unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithel Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 And that begs the question: If a fighter unit is attacked by another fighter unit is this air vs ground combat or is it air vs air combat? The game system doesn't seem to have any air vs air combat except when a fighter unit performs "escort" duty. I guess I'd have to assume that fighters attacking other fighters is "strafing" but then the defending unit shouldn't be using it's "air attack". And I'd probably have to say that I don't think air units should get entrenchment bonuses when defending against an air attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 It(the grounded fighters) uses its AD(air defense) ctv, not its AA ctv. So you think that improved positions that fortifications represent wouldn't include hardened hangar facilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithel Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I'm not an expert on aircraft hangers in WW2, but I suspect many aircraft were parked outdoors and didn't have hangers. I would probably consider any benefit from a "fortified" position to be from some well built anti-air gun emplacements. Maybe I'm not understanding the combat system correctly. My assumption was that the defending unit's losses would be based on attack value minus the defenders defense value for that type of attack, while the attackers losses would be based on the defender's attack value minus the attackers defense value. This is how I assumed "Special Forces" were made to be very good at causing damage but at the same time took a lot of damage themselves. The manual documentation isn't clear when it uses the terms "Defend Type Value" and "Attack Type Value". I'd like to see a specific example of combat with actual numbers used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 That's a generalization at best, there are a lot of modifiers, based on supply, readiness, experience, morale, terrain, HQ support/experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithel Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Yes, all those other factors are extremely important, but it would be good to know for sure the basics of combat calculations. If I have an "Army" that attacks another "Army", lets assume both have SA of 3 and SD of 1. Assuming all other factors are not important for this basic calculation, which if these calculations is how combat works: Method A: The attacker does damage to the defender based on it's SA of 3, the defender does damage to the attacker based on it's SD of 1. OR Method B: The attacker and defender do damage based on SA-SD, thus in this case because both have equal capability they are going to damage each other with a combat value of 2 (3-1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 So does a fighter, that is in an entrenched tile, benefit from its entrenchment value if it intercepts an enemy air attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 No to Baron's inquiry. Mithel, you want to "know for sure"???? Excuse me...??? There is also a + - 1 combat variable. You do realize that to represent a real world simulation of combat, you'll never "know for sure", Murphy's Law is always in effect. Just do what I do and most other SC players, use the prediction numbers at the top of the map screen and know that they are imprecise. If you'll examine the combat target values and get a handle on target type definitions you'll gain an intuitive ability at prediction, but you'll never "know for sure". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithel Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 SeaMonkey, no, I'm not interested in knowing how the formula's work for playing the game, but rather for modding the game. I'm very interested in modding SC2 but it's foolish to modify something if you don't know how it works. Thus I need to know what the "attack" values and "defense" values mean in terms of combat. As for playing, the prediction values at the top of the screen are terrific, they really make it easy to play. And I like the +/-1 unpredictability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I understand Mithel. To tell you from my experience as a modder way back in the SC1 days there are many idiosyncracies involved under the hood in the editor. Hubert has given us the tools to do things that probably he didn't even fathom at the moment of creation with the introduction and evolution of the SC2 editor. That makes experimentation and dedication paramount to getting a feel for the game features and like I did, I suggest you set up different models and try things out. Yes its time consuming, but its a lot a fun especially when you unfold your creation to all these players that appreciate it. We will all try to help you, but its a pretty complicated endeavor. Wishing you all the best and good luck with your customizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithel Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I did some testing and I did determine that combat "defense" values are not defense at all, they are "counter attack" ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts