Big Al Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 Game mechanics. But seamonkey is right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin I Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Isolated forts really need a minimal level of supply (its reasonable to assume massive stockpiles of food and munitions) but as others note, not be able to reinforce. I do note Maginot line probably could reinforce via tunnels but thats exceptional. Yes, there are game mechanics limitations here. The self reinforcing ability of isolated HQs is also rather odd and a similar problem. Air supply - hmm. Actually would like to see this added. There are some cases where it did let units hang on for a few months longer. Perhaps this is a mode for bombers - raid or supply. If supply mode chosen, then provides a minimal (say L1 to L5 depending on technology and bomber supply) to one unit within range. Uses something like the attachment mechanic to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 units cut off from the supply sources, regardless of being in cities, forts or else should not be able to reinforce. And you should not have to use 8 units to keep a surrounded units from reinforcing above 5r. All in all, cut off units are cut off from supply and reinforcements. Then if the surrounded unit wants to break out it can of course try it so and then it becomes the question if the enemy guarded the encirclement well enough. But that is another question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 I agree units cut off from supply shouldnt be able to reinforce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Again, the mechanism is there. What keeps units from reinforcing? Low supply, right? So, if their supply is reduced through strategic attack on the facilities they are deployed within, ie ports / cities, then they will be unable to reinforce to a degree. Here's my reasoning, what a loss in combat strength represents is men and machines incapicitated in the enemy attack, and then in the ensuing friendly turn a brief respite in combat occurs allowing some of those machines to be repaired and some of the injured to be patched up and returned to the fight. Now who's going to tell me that's not a reasonable assessment? One thing I will stand with is it is pretty tough to reduce both a port and a city in one turn and that is one reason I'm an advocate for double strike bombers. I also think ground units attacking those facilities should also have a strategic attack value to further erode the supply levels. Shouldn't be that tough to institute with this SC engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 You can modify the scenairo also. I am toying around with the idea of lowering the max value for a location down and multipling up the MPP value for such effect. I believe supply is based on a supply source and its value. So now a city is 10 strength and 1mpp per strength. What if I reduced a city down to 5 strength and 2mpp per value? now supply drops to 5 normally. If it works like I think? Another thing to put on my new test list. BTW BF1939 is done for WWI. I acautll have to update SC2GC because I found a lot of AI bugs. I was converting and fixing both at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Again, the mechanism is there. What keeps units from reinforcing? Low supply, right? So, if their supply is reduced through strategic attack on the facilities they are deployed within, ie ports / cities, then they will be unable to reinforce to a degree. Here's my reasoning, what a loss in combat strength represents is men and machines incapicitated in the enemy attack, and then in the ensuing friendly turn a brief respite in combat occurs allowing some of those machines to be repaired and some of the injured to be patched up and returned to the fight. Now who's going to tell me that's not a reasonable assessment? One thing I will stand with is it is pretty tough to reduce both a port and a city in one turn and that is one reason I'm an advocate for double strike bombers. I also think ground units attacking those facilities should also have a strategic attack value to further erode the supply levels. Shouldn't be that tough to institute with this SC engine. That is already simulated through supply level and morale. Problem is a unit can rebuild to 10 over and over again. That makes it dull. Units cut off from friendly lines in fortressess and cities should not be able to reinforce. A cut off unit in open terrain is canon fodder and the same should apply for all encircled units. They should not be able to reinforce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Sorry Kuni, IMO there are examples of units in fortified areas that held out for weeks, Brest-Litovsk, Corregidor, etc and that is why you need to reduce the supply that allows the reinforcement, it simulates "siege". A few guys with stockpiled ammo, in improved positions, advanced weaponry and the inclination can hold off a lot of combatants, ie 300 Spartans, can fight like ten their number. I can see your argument and in a way I do agree about cut off units being imperiled, I just want to see the CTVs that will allow the attacker to do the job in an expeditious manner if he so wishes to take the casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I don't see why a fortress should defend equally good encircled as not encircled. No point cutting off enemy cities and fortresses then. Both Corregidor and Brest-Litovsk held out for some time yes, but they did not stay as strong instead they got weaker. In SC they never get weaker which is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Am I missing something here? Can you not bomb down the supply level of fortifications? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crispy131313 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I think the supply issue of cut off cities and fortresses were adressed in the "World in Flames," mod. A few specific tiles were marked "siege" and if enemy units occupied these tiles that represented key supply routes then the cities/forts supply would wither, even without the use of strategic bombers. I beleive a few examples were Leningrad and Sevastapool off the top of my head. I'm not sure if this is the solution you best wanted, but it is a solution nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 One thing that hasn't been mentioned about encircled units, whether in or out of fortresses, is that without a HQ to back them up, and with poor supply, they are frequently easy meat for an attacker. Their morale and readiness will be low, and they will probably also be beyond friendly fighter interception range, making enemy bombing attacks against them more effective. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with the idea of further penalizing cut off units, but I already find them to often be an easy kill. It can also be quite exciting watching the last stand made by your cut off unit as you are thinking "if only it could survive just one more turn, then I might be able to break through and rescue it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 "if only it could survive just one more turn, then I might be able to break through and rescue it!" Yes I also agree the sc3 might be rescued. Bill can you give us some positive inside thoughts on sc3??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Kuni, SC 3 to be rescued? Honestly, SC WW1 is the best strategic command game ever. EVER. No need for a rescue. Stay away with SC 3. Instead, leave me as much as possible time to play SC WW1. I even would buy willingly (and with a happy heart) pay for download content (no, rest assured, there is none i know of). I can't even describe how much fun this game is already today, in the beta phase. I've played some multiplayer games, and they were AWESOME. Awesome. Awesome. This game is the best strategic game i've ever played on a computer. Feels like a decades ago buried wish come back alive and true. SC 3? Well, this can't get that much better than this game. Hexes instead of tiles, well, yes, i would take them. But thats it. Anything else? Not many wishes open from my side. And i bet that those will be fullfilled in SC3, too. But today, today I'm unbelievable glad that i was invited to play-test this beauty. It is already so much fun to play this beta version against a human opponent. The scenario is so unbelievable fresh and well done. The whole WW1 campaing is so fresh -just like new snow in a dark night under the moon light. Undiscovered, magical, all new, shiny and glimmering, just simply awesome. It is about time to accept that tiles work well in the SC engine. At least in the SC WW1 engine they do work very well. Honestly. Wait till you have played this game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Its done, testing the new A.I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Yes I also agree the sc3 might be rescued. Bill can you give us some positive inside thoughts on sc3??? That would be a little premature, especially given that at the moment 100% of my attention is on making a fun, historical and playable WWI game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettowvorbeck Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Glad to hear that. I wish there was more talk on this board about the Great War aspects of the WW1 game. Fancy that. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 That would be a little premature, especially given that at the moment 100% of my attention is on making a fun, historical and playable WWI game. Give me something dammit. How long the wait? Have you started working on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Kuni, SC 3 to be rescued? Honestly, SC WW1 is the best strategic command game ever. EVER. No need for a rescue. Stay away with SC 3. Instead, leave me as much as possible time to play SC WW1. I even would buy willingly (and with a happy heart) pay for download content (no, rest assured, there is none i know of). I can't even describe how much fun this game is already today, in the beta phase. I've played some multiplayer games, and they were AWESOME. Awesome. Awesome. This game is the best strategic game i've ever played on a computer. Feels like a decades ago buried wish come back alive and true. SC 3? Well, this can't get that much better than this game. Hexes instead of tiles, well, yes, i would take them. But thats it. Anything else? Not many wishes open from my side. And i bet that those will be fullfilled in SC3, too. But today, today I'm unbelievable glad that i was invited to play-test this beauty. It is already so much fun to play this beta version against a human opponent. The scenario is so unbelievable fresh and well done. The whole WW1 campaing is so fresh -just like new snow in a dark night under the moon light. Undiscovered, magical, all new, shiny and glimmering, just simply awesome. It is about time to accept that tiles work well in the SC engine. At least in the SC WW1 engine they do work very well. Honestly. Wait till you have played this game... Cheer leader stuff is not working on me. I want my hexes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 actually there is a way to do squares with the same functionality of hexes. lay squares next to each other horizontally on odd numbered rows lay squares next to each other horizontally on even numbered rows but shift them horizontally 1/2 their diameter to the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin I Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Yes, but its functionally equivalent to hexes - no gain from staggered squares and they look worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Tiles, Hexes, grids, whatever, the main consideration here is that you don't want to detract from the game mechanics, whatever is conducive to further feature development is what should be the grail. SC is not for everyone. If you have a deficiency is space / shape relationship then perhaps you should look somewhere else for your gaming pleasure. You're just not smart enough for SC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts