Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I think somehow we need to get rid of the attack-move away to make space for another corps-dance, which is frankly ridiculous. Movement should stop after a prepared attack (they're sacrificing their movement to make that improved attack), and some sort of stacking mechanism should take its place. Maybe you could switch places even with a unit that has acted AND be able to attack after the switching? This would enable better concentrated attacks, simulate shifting and reserves better. I know it's close to the same as now, but less gamey. Of course, it's a major change...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a sugestion for the next patch: When a unit is selected for operational movement, tiles occupied by freindly units that would otherwise be reachable should also be highlighted. I have had the problem that I wanted to move a unit and then occupy the vacant tile with another unit moved in operationaly, only to discover that I couldn't reach that tile with operational movement, which left an uncomfortable hole in my lines. There is presently no way to find out if it's possible before leaving the tile.

Good idea and I'll add this in for the next update.

Thanks,

Hubert

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would request that normalized MPP would become the norm in all the campaigns. It's just a better and more logical way of handling things when you have different turn lengths, and creates interesting shifts in the war, from the attacking period in the summer where it's hard to replace losses, to the build-up phases in the winter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another idea: I find it odd that minor cities are worth nothing at all MPP wise. Thus I find myself unrealistically sacrificing them because their worth is very neglible in certain situations.

Would it be possible to increase all costs and incomes, and make minor cities worth 5 MPPs at full strength? Or maybe they could somehow produce say 2 MPPs even at STR 5?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another idea: I find it odd that minor cities are worth nothing at all MPP wise. Thus I find myself unrealistically sacrificing them because their worth is very neglible in certain situations.

Would it be possible to increase all costs and incomes, and make minor cities worth 5 MPPs at full strength? Or maybe they could somehow produce say 2 MPPs even at STR 5?

I like that the minor cities have no MMP value. In the older SC2 games, each city had some MMP value and it bothered me a bit. Trust me, there was no industry in cities like Kolomea, Boruysk or Uman:) They were just big villages with no paved roads and most of their citizens were barefoot peasants.

The minor cities have some value, because they are important due to the supply and some of them are National Morale objecives.

I really don't like that some players ( copying the AI "tactics" ), go for capturing undefended minor cities, just because their are free of enemy units. Of course later, given of the current supply model, it is very difficult the smoke out that kind of units, even if their are completely cut off. It is a amateurish tactic ( that may pay off quite well though ), because the main objective should be a defeat of opponent's armies in the field, not taking defenceless minor cities. Providing minor cities with some MMP values, would further encourage implementation of that kind of unrealistic tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, there is no industry east of Moscow and west of the Urals (in WW1 at least), that I know. I don't want Russia to get boosted in importance because it has a huge amount of these towns. But agriculture is important as well - just look at Holland. But I suppose the food only really helps if there is a shortage of it in the first place in national production, and I guess the Russians have no lack of food then.

So in a way, I see where you're coming from. Maybe then some more minor cities should be turned into major cities but with a strength cap of 5 instead? Would that be better?

Anyway, is there any chance of an official Storm over Europe with just corps and "light divisions" performing recon and mobile defense / capture of undefended locations?

I'm loathe to do it myself because a patch would require everything to be redone again, and I'm sure I'd mess it up. Plus it would be harder to get people to play it.

Armies are organizational units. Really, the HQ units are the "army" units.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another one: how is it that you are able to ignore undiscovered units for movement purposes but as soon as you spot them, your movement becomes more limited? Movement should stop because of the 2 point movement penalty for moving next to 2+ enemies even if some of those enemies remain undiscovered before the move.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't like that some players ( copying the AI "tactics" ), go for capturing undefended minor cities, just because their are free of enemy units. Of course later, given of the current supply model, it is very difficult the smoke out that kind of units, even if their are completely cut off. It is a amateurish tactic ( that may pay off quite well though ), because the main objective should be a defeat of opponent's armies in the field, not taking defenceless minor cities. Providing minor cities with some MMP values, would further encourage implementation of that kind of unrealistic tactics.

What if the Supply value of these small cities was reduce from 5 to 2?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of course we'd need to have the editor changed so that towns can have fractional MPP values in relation to supply strength, I wouldn't dream of reducing supply levels of towns.

But the whole thing is a lot bigger than it sounds to do right: you'd need to balance each nation's actual capacity, plus maybe unit prices and therefore events, etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
What if the Supply value of these small cities was reduce from 5 to 2?

I reality, the small towns had importance for the supply, not because they were "producing supply", but because they were the only places around with some kind of infrastructure, through which the supply line could be led to the units on the front. If we reduce their supply value in the game, the units would be permanently out of supply. We would need to place a HQ in each town in order to strenghten the supply line and that would be practically not possible. In my oppinion the current supply value of the small towns is just a choice of a lesser evil...

The other thing is, that if a unit is cut off in a small town ( that is completely surrounded by the enemy units or their zones of control ), it's supply value should be zero If I'm not wrong, during WWII and WWI the supply was distributed form depots established in some distance from the front and if the supply line was cut off, the units were out it and there was no exception. I just cannot imagine a 40 000 German corps lost in Russia getting food and amunition from a razed to the ground small Russian town...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what you mention is one of the biggest problems of the current engine: the ability of troops to hold out forever in an occupied town surrounded by enemies. I can understand such thing for fortresses but not for small towns. What I see is two strange things happening:

1) a corps which has advanced through enemy lines (maybe even by forced march) and occupying a town in the hinterland. This corps happily survives, has full movement to achieve this and is difficult to dislodge if at all (happens in Russia often)

2) a corps which was cut off in an offensive and needs to be dug out with a spoon...often needing artillery or 4 or more corps to dislodge/kill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. This is a good change, Ivanov. Isolated towns should have a smaller supply value - 0 ( or if we're not being extreme) 1 for occupiers, perhaps 2 or 3 for owning troops, maybe the willing help of the people would affect things?

There are many cases of Soviet units being cut off on their own territory and suffering terribly due to the lack of the supply. A good example are some units surrounded by the Germans after the winter 1941/42 counteroffensive. To be more specific, we can mention the 2nd Shock Army led by Andrey Vlasov, who later become the most famous or maybe infamous Soviet colaborator with the Germans.

If a unit is cut off in a captured enemy town, I don't think that it should have any supply at all. Let's try to imagine again a German unit getting ammunition and fuel out of a captured Russian town... It's a bit absurd. Even if the unit's supply value will drop to zero during the next turn, it does not mean, that it won't be able to defend itself for some time being surrounded. It's readiness and morale will also drop, but it will be able to survive maybe one or two turns, until some kind of rescue attempt will be undretaken by the friendly units. It would be more realistic - the only way a cut off unit would be able to survive should be a rescue attempt. If the later wouldn't be possible due to the general situation on the front, a unit should be condemned to a certain death, just as in the reality.

Another point about the supply, that has been mentioned here before, is supplying of the Allied units after the D-Day, but the solution would be if the small towns with ports could be a supply source. Accordingly a fortress should be able to provide supply to the adjacent units.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try and reduce an HQ in the Burmese highlands that is sitting on a town/city. The incessant rain keeps air out of the equation, then the attacking forces can't get good supply from an adjacent HQ because of terrain penalties, just forget it!:mad:

And Shark....please...Bastogne?:rolleyes: Think about that relative to the time period of an SC turn, a better example is the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad. Still, there needs to be a steady erosion of supply when a unit is cutoff and remains cutoff from supply. It is a viable tactic, that in reality is used in warfare throughout history and is completely undermined by the current SC engine.:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites
...it's usualy not wise to get surrounded, the ability of an HQ to get supply when it's cut off is sometimes odd in this game.

The problem behind the problem lies in the model for the road and rail network. A town should be required to connect via rail or road to either a port or capital city if it is to act as a supply source.

Notice my focus is on the rail and road network. It should not be necessay to surround each tile arround a city to degrade its supply. If you effectively cut off all rail and road access, its supply level should be seriously impaired.

How strong should this impairment be? At least half... so a level 10 city goes down to 5; a level 8 goes down to 4; and a level 5 goes down to 2 or 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, it doesn't matter as long as an HQ is available because even at supply source 0 and HQ will provide 5 supply. At the SC scale it is important to remember that not all the road and rail infrastructure can be represented, even trails were a source of the supply network in WW2.

I'm completely OK with having to cut off all tiles by ZoCs or enemy units as long as the ultimate supply of the surrounded unit goes to zero in which case morale and readiness drops to zero resulting in the unit surrendering. Even a unit surrounded that has a high experience rating can survive for an unlimited amount of time in certain terrain as it gains additional experience from the ineffective attacks of the surrounding units. It actually becomes stronger and is able to fight off all attacks with no strength reductions.

I've seen a unit of the AI that has 7 metals because of this, no matter the supply level, try and reduce a unit with that much experience, it's fantasy land.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...