HQs, techs, supply, ports, stacking

[xwormwood]

Just some question i asked myself:

aren't the HQ units too expensive?

And / or shouldn't they be able to attack as well?

Maybe armies should be able to get an HQ tech / supply tech improvement, enabling them to receive better supply and / or disembark without a port symbol?

The AI suffers mostly from the actual HQ concepts / prices, because she often misuses or waste her HQs in suicidal invasions.

A lonely AI HQ stays insane long alive because it can and will resupply itself some turns before YOU can draw enough units to kill it in one turns attacks.

But this very single HQ is absolutly worthless because it can't attack.

The pure logic of this concept is awesome. Troops fall down from heaven to reinforce a HQ, but the very same troops are not able to fight their way through enemy resistance, even though they sit on pure supply and are led by the best military leaders available.

I can understand the logic that HQ move slow, but not why they are not able to fight (btw.: certain HQs should be allowed to move faster than others, Patton and Rommel p.e.).

On the other hand: An ARMY with purchased HQ TECH could receive better supply or morale or anything else nice. This HQ TECH, or should we better call it SUPPLY TECH, could decrease every one or two turns for one point until it reaches zero or even minus zero point(s).

With SUPPLY / HQ tech i could invade bare islands with no towns or cities, it could attack in desolate areas if nescessary.

The SUPPLY / HQ tech could enable players to disembark shorelines without a harbor as well.

Today we have places where you can lose your unit for good, if you unload it on an island without a port. And that is a flaw, i think we all can agree on this, can't we? If i posses the technologie to disembark without a port, than i do (of course) know a way to embark these men again.

In PT the special units (marines) come with the ability to disembark without a harbor. So they already have this tech. But if you place any other unit (planes as well) on an empty island without port, you can lose this unit there, it can't be ever used again, imprisoned there for life.

Without the Clash of Steel Mulberry unit in the game of SC2 there should at last be a discussion if there shouldn't be a supply naval unit or a supply value / tech for naval unist like BBs, CVs, CAs or DDs, enabliing them to provide supply for land units on the beach.

Mabye even the whole port concept is not the best way for a game like SC2. It would probably be better to use them (if at all) purely as dockyard / wharf symbol, and allow players to embark / disembark wherever they want (for a price, of course. mountains and woods without a nearby city or town would be insane expensive while cities and dockyards would be cheap compared to woods and mountains).

This would deliver us from ports which can only be entered from one side of a tile as well AND it would enlarge the map a bit because the tiles wouldn't be wasted anymore from the dreadful port symbols. The port would be better an inland tile, but not a sea tile as well.

Wouldn't it be best to allow the stacking of units? It is not the best way to design a game where two or more naval units can't stay in the same hex or seazones.

This might be correct in a river or channel, but not for oceans.

I would bet that the entire navies of all the WW2 countries together would have had room enough in one or two SC2 naval tiles.

And in the first years of WW2 some of them wouldn't even have known that enemies were nearby.

Okay, i scribbled quite a lot here, and i lost my initial point a bit.

1) HQs, do they really have to be so expensive? And if yes: doesn't this reduces the gameplay too much

2) Shouldn't HQ be able to attack as well? Wouldn't this help the AI to improve its D-Day / amphib operations?

3) wouldn't it be better if all units could by a HQ tech?

4) wouldn't it be better if all units could disembark from everywhere, if the price is right & paid?

5) shouldn't naval units be able to provide supply to units on the beaches?

6) do we really need port tiles / hexes, or wouldn't the introduction of stacking units be the in any possibly way far superior solution?

7) Shouldn't naval units witout naval tech have to face the chance that they miss their attack target?

8) Last but not least: would it hurt so much if the game / scenario designer would here or there explain their game concepts a bit more often or in detail to the audience? This would help to avoid needles discussions, knowing that the game engine can't to something or that a concept was already tested and scraped because of reason xyz?

No offence!

Cheers,

Claus

[SeaMonkey]

Well Claus I've been waiting for someone to answer you since I don't own PDE and you did post in that forum, but I'll state my opinion as a longtime SC player as it pertains to the most current version(PT).

I'm OK with the way HQs work, the cost is justifiable, doesn't inhibit gameplay as they actually do a good job of representing an Army Group leader, allocation of supplies and attachments of assets for offensive and defensive operational emphasis.

HQs already provide an enhanced form of attacking attributes and it is not so often in WW2 that an AG commander would be at the point of an operation, and if so mostly for observational and directive actions.

Your 4 and 5 are interesting, but amphibious operations require special training and obviously specially adapted equipment for success. Since we don't have the ability to use an amphib tech upgrade yet and SC naval units don't have a capacity to carry a separate supply allocation, its kind of a difficult scenario to apply with the present engine's features.

Maybe if a naval unit stands adjacent to coastal tile it could pass on its supply status to local land units much the way HQs do now, paying the terrain penalties and also suffering a degradation per turn of supply capability. This would force a somewhat realistic convoy system as the SC naval units do represent a task force and would have to shuttle back and forth from ports to rejuvenate their supply capacity. It would also make close proximity of supply ports desirable. Equally there would be an opportunity for your opponent to interdict those convoys, a somewhat accurate simulation although an abstraction of reality IMO.

I'm still in the court that our SC engineer unit should be able to provide an array of upgrades in certain locals where it was possible in WW2, much like they perform the "fortification" parameter.

6, yes, we need port representation, stacking is OK, but again the current features preclude that action. Superior...I'm OK with either, what about the AI?

I'm with you on 7, but naval units fail many times to cause damage just like any other SC units, if you mean they should fail to engage altogether and miss finding enemy naval units on the high seas, I'm on your team with that concept, but again the current engine fails in capturing this very desirable feature accurately.

When you think about it perhaps that very scenario (the failure to cause damage) simulates the "two ships passing in the night" although they are adjacent to each other and we do activate the attack mechanism.

Hey Claus, come on ...8... discussion is never needless and always has the potential to catalyze new ideas which we see in every new SC release. We are wanton for information and to a certain degree I agree with you, a little more feedback would be nice. Perhaps HC and Battlefront prefer to keep us "in the dark" so that our other senses are heightened as we parade ideas to this forum, just like you did with this post.

[masterclaude]

Hello everyone here is masterclaude, humble servant of the wargame kingdom. Sir xwormwood, I’m glad you brought up those questions because most people in most forum simply don’t buy any thought on game design for they say it’s redundant, academic and pointless because we, players, don’t make theses games out there nor have any clue at how a programmer can implement our suggestions within his timetable/ market target boundaries. Well, I do know so I will try to answer your questions in regard of SC2 specifically, that is, what could be valid or consistent with the main architecture of SC2. Well the last word is up to M. Cater, of course.

1) HQ too expensive? Attack capacity?

First of all, Have you ever wondered what is a HeadQuarter as a military definition and what it is for this game? Clearly enough, we are not talking of the same entity. HQs in SC2 include a lot of stuff. Not only top officers with some maps and communication devices but a whole range of assets: thousands of vehicles, special companies and engineers units, intelligence staff, food, clothes, ammunition, fuel dumps scattered over hundreds of square kilometers around the visible icon squeezed on a unique tile. We are talking on Fall weiss scale of no less than 200 000 men some of which are rear area security units, small garrisons and the like. If anything, HQs are certainly not too expensive. While armies are the muscles, HQs are the brain, the nerves and the blood of SC military forces and can’t be dismissed as a secundary unit with a good or bad leader. By the way, naming a HQ Rommel won’t give more guns and fuel to the 21th Panzer, only a better tactical capacity, but, on a strategic scale, it can only take the form of a combat bonus affecting the math formulas. So ,let’s forget about theses leaders and let’s keep in mind that a HQ unit is more or less efficient in pro rata of its assets. Accordingly, US HQs for instance should be a lot stronger than the others ones and more expensive as well. If we also take into account the chain command flexibility and communication speed and reliability, German ones are at top while French and Italians ones were simply overwhelmed by the new WW2 requirements. I am pretty satisfied with the HQ role in SC2. They have effects, through supply availability, on action points(so mobility), on morale and readiness, all preserved historical mechanisms. Now, having HQs reinforcing wherever they are doesn’t match any historical possibilities. HQs should be subject to the standard supply limitations as any other units unless there are on a coastal tile where they would have (as they are presumably linked to a supply source by sea transport) some of the mulberries features. Otherwise, I can’t see that lone AI HQ lost in the birma jungle or in the Sahara desert replenishing itself all the time for no gain- not to mention you can use it for a mpp siphon by keeping it alive turn after turn . Isolated some times by enemy ZOC a unit like that should disappear.

How about its fighting capacity? Hum..defensive one, sure! Maybe HQs could be given flak capacity and soft target defense power or some kind of high evasion rate or like Subs -as strange as it seems with this abstract realistic process – when attacked they could surface 2 tiles back closer to a supply source ( don’t forget how large is an HQ deployment, much more than one tile, destroying some trains or trucks convoys with your spearhead tanks won’t neutralize it).

Supply or HQ tech for units?

There is no equivalent in WW2. That would be just another gamey trick to please the crowd looking for easy moves and attacks giving SC2 a faster pace and probably more exciting play from this point of view. Logistic units were part of the internal T&O of divisions and there was many bigger ones attached to corps or armies but it is already there with units capacity to draw supply from cities and ports. Yes, some games have extra supply or offensive supply features that can be given for a turn to some units. If we expand that supply capacity with a Tech , I guess it’ll be better to fit this innovation in the game through existing code easier to reorganize. I mean we already have static supply sources. We need one that can be created by a unit (a bit like HQs do). You know we have a supply depot sprite in SC2 operational scenario. Why not having depot creation as well for some cost by a specific unit?

This depot could start at ten then lose a point every turn. For instance, following your suggestion, a destroyer unit( because it involved smaller vessels able to close in shores) could create a depot of one to ten points depending of its own strength(1 to 10) and depending on what ppm you give for:

- Suppose we pay 2 ppm for each supply depot point, then a destroyer with 8 point strength would be able to build up to 8 point depot for the cost of 16 ppm or a 5 point depot for the cost of 10 ppm on a land tile next to its sea or coastal tile. As long as the destroyer unit stay there we assume supply are disembarked one way or the other and the depot could stay at full value . That would emulate nicely a Guadalcanal or D-Day situation.

- Bombers could have the same capacity ( as long as there within range of another supply source hold by the player) so reproducing theses famous air lifts that would unlocked peripheric theaters and islands

Of course, all the details is a bit of complexity but the main object, that is creating Depot, would be easy to code. I doubt the SC2 tech feature in its present state can support what you asked. Having temporary depot would be better for realism as well.

All units able to embark/disembark without ports?

Absolutly unreceivable. We have a serious problem( as far as realism is at stake)with the present system that allows almost any numbers and any size of units to embark and disembark in no time no penalty no delay in any port( do you think Cherbourg or Throndeim has the same port capacity as Hong kong or New York ones?) Giving any units a sort of amphibious capacity is way beyond any nation capacity including USA. At any given time in WW2, the Allied never got equipments to land more than approximatly 300 000 mens world wide. On SC2 Fall Weiss scale, it amounts to 5-7 corps or 3-4 armies. Amphibious capacity should be a lot reduced actually and Amphibious level and Transport level should be bought an constitute a pool . If you have 30 amphibious point in your pool than you are able to move 30 points of armies, corps and so on for an amphibious landing. Not more.

Ports or no ports?

Well, you see me coming! Ports are unescapable military and economic infrastructure in any decent strategic WW2 game. We could change ports though so it could be customable in size or role( some ports would never refit naval units for instance or only a minimum – think of Port Moresby, Tobruk, St.Johns Canada! How on earth theses ports could refit Warships! One or 2 points would be a big concession in this respect.

Stacking units?

More than a major change. You are asking for a new game. Very though to rewrite all this code to allow for stacking while keeping all the others features workable. A lot of testing would be needed. Think of a year or 2 of development.

Naval combats revised?

Totally agree! For most of the war, it was hard for TF to keep contact with enemy ships, search and destroy them. There should be a miss feature or evade feature for all naval combats and ships encounters, not just subs.

Hope you had here some interesting thoughts on the matter.

masterclaude

Post scriptum: Just read Sea monkey response. I think we are fighting the same fight and go along with you for the essentials

[xwormwood]

Thanks for your replies, gentlemen.

2.) HQs could easily get the ability to attack, or to move a bit faster. There is no REAL reason why they are denied this option. It is a game designer descision to do so. In the end you can explain everything (yes or no HQ attack).

4) Europe is full of ports, there are many more than those on the map.

So we can assume that a Dunkirk kind of evacuation could at least be organized without a major port at hand.

I would prefer a "bad solution" over the current "no solution" (= island prison camps, you can land but never leave), which make quite a bit of the maps useles in play terms.

6) the port tiles are crutches (no offence! ), in PT Pearl Harbor needs alone FOUR tiles with ports just to give the japanese player the abilitiy to attack the american pacific fleet in harbor. 4 Tiles of land could be New York, Washington, and two more major cities next to each other. Here we see three tiles wasted and reducing the mapsize. The american pacific fleet would have been in ONE tile, if the game concept had a better solution than the crutch it now uses (again: no offence!).

Think about the way Civilization uses tiles and stacking, than you get an idea of a better solution, than you undestand that "port tiles" are nothing but a waste to keep a not perfect naval game system alive (again: please, no offence, i DO like SC2).

8) I would really like to read some insights now and then from Hubert,

some of his thoughts, ideas, his maybe not realised, fruitless concepts or what he tried and couldn'r realized or what he is planing to do etc.

I agree that discussion is important, of course it is, and i do like to discuss ideas.

Let me put it another way: does anybody remember what happend with the ideas of the "StratCom Design Challenge"? Does anybody remember which ideas there were in it?

Does anybody know which ideas were used or will be used, or what part of the ideas will be used or won't be used?

Would it be so hard to give some more infos (after all the ideas were not even allowed to be commented while the contest lasted).? :confused:

[Hubert Cater]

8) I would really like to read some insights now and then from Hubert,

some of his thoughts, ideas, his maybe not realised, fruitless concepts or what he tried and couldn'r realized or what he is planing to do etc.

I'd love to xwormwood and I'll be completely honest in that there is really so little time outside of game development for me to reasonably do this. Often development takes a lot longer than you would think and there is a careful balance (for sure) on where my time and efforts should be appropriately directed.

That being said I do try and read every post and keep on track of the most important feedback and findings and even if I don't have the chance to comment fully here and there, rest assured that quite often some of this feedback makes it back into the game one way or the other.

Hubert

[xwormwood]

Hubert, when i wrote my entry i had completly forgot your injury, so sorry for the one ot the other probably a little bit unfair sentence!

[Hubert Cater]

No worries