Rabelesius Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 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. That's exactly my problem. But the other side of the coin is, that players can make gamey maneuvers, especially with cavalry on the Eastern Front, to cut off supply deep in the hinterland. The boardgame Great War in Europe had a wonderful solution for this: you cannot advance into hexes out of supply, so even if you did advance you had to capture a town by the movement. Otherwise, it was not possible. In SC game terms, this could be simulated by increasing the movement cost in enemy held terrain drastically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 That's not a problem Rab! You move a cav unit, or any other for that matter, too far into enemy territory, I'll eliminate it next turn. One turn "out of supply" just simulates a commando, partisan, recon in force raid, easily neutralized the next turn and I'll thank you for the kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabelesius Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I am struggling right now with one of my MP opponents. He is ruthlessly using his cavalry and even infantry to encircle the Russians. Coupled with the weak abilities of the Russian corps, all I can do right now is putting my corps into towns/fortresses/cities to delay him. That, of course, does not really work. I sense that this tactic is also due to some initial faults of mine while attacking, but I can see that he is using the style to the best advantage (and who would blame him). It is only the ahistorical effects that I see right now...no chance for the Russians to develop a coherent front line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 We were talking about supply with Kommandant, and one idea I came up with that can be executed is using "supply depots", cheap HQs that have no command ability, being used as the chief source of supply, with minor towns being 1 in supply, for example. Majors could be 6, capitals still 10. You'd have to form your supply lines manually with the supply depots, and being cut off in towns would have serious repercussions. Besides that, it would slow down deep offensives due to outrunning supply, something we've all read about. But is this too much of a headache for the benefits? Possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Something like that has been proposed before, years ago, by Bill(pzgndr) with the use of a mobile supply source. So far, Hubert has not found a way to adequately accomodate the feature into SC. It's really a tough call as it adds additional complication, but I still remain a proponent for a realistic LoC program. It adds a dimension the AI would have to contend with and I'm sure there will be additional tasks players will have to deal with, but it is so important to the application of a good wargame representing WW2. I know Hubert has put a lot of thought into it(LoC) and I trust someday he and others will arrive at a solution, but I'm afraid it will be a completely different scheme than what SC models now and that means a lot of rewritten code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 We were talking about supply with Kommandant, and one idea I came up with that can be executed is using "supply depots", cheap HQs that have no command ability, being used as the chief source of supply, with minor towns being 1 in supply, for example. Majors could be 6, capitals still 10. You'd have to form your supply lines manually with the supply depots, and being cut off in towns would have serious repercussions. Besides that, it would slow down deep offensives due to outrunning supply, something we've all read about. But is this too much of a headache for the benefits? Possibly. I really like this idea. Once I played a board game like this... I guess it would be hard for the AI... The AI would need to plan in advance how many depots it will need, and, where. This, of course, also means deciding, way in advance, where you will be advancing, or, retreating. Still, I think it is a great idea, and, Hubert should pursue it even if he cannot get the AI right at first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winti Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Is it a feature that France surrender even they have proper units to defend soil regions? In this turn in August 1940 french troops surrender to Germany. Too early for my taste... I think it is due to the French NM went down to 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I really like this idea. Once I played a board game like this... I guess it would be hard for the AI... The AI would need to plan in advance how many depots it will need, and, where. This, of course, also means deciding, way in advance, where you will be advancing, or, retreating. Still, I think it is a great idea, and, Hubert should pursue it even if he cannot get the AI right at first. Indeed, I was actually thinking about modding this in with Kommandant. Might even be doable. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Can we get a "sleep forever" option if it doesn't already exist? I never want to cycle through units as I get so many needless units there, it's slow. I habitually forget units in far away corners even if they are under attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted September 26, 2011 Author Share Posted September 26, 2011 Just so I understand correctly could you clarify how this would be different from the existing 'Sleep' option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Hmm, is the Sleep option actually permanent until the unit is moved in later turns? I forget, I thought it was only for the current turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted September 27, 2011 Author Share Posted September 27, 2011 It is until the unit is moved in later turns... does this do the trick then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Hubert, why is there no counter-battery fire? Or if there is, it will never happen because the range for arty is 2 - no way two opposing artys are within that distance in a battle line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 There is actually a counter-battery fire in the game, but as you said both of the arty units have to be within each others range. To be honest, I don't like this feature too much. I'd always prefer to target enemy's infantry instead of wasting amo on the counter-battery fire. There should be an option to set your arty to the defensive fire and choose if it should perform counter-battery fire or target attacking infantry. It would also help if players would be able to indicate which unit will be targeted first in case of the attack. That would help to target the strongest and most dangerous unit. It makes sense in situations when the amo is low. An example: The Turkish arty has only one shell left and it will automatically fire when the first Brit unit attacks. In this case, it would perform the counter-battery fire, after which there will be no amo left to support further defence. It would make more sense, to set the arty to target the British corps when it attacks, instead of wasting amo on counter-battery fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 This is very true, if there are no special mechanics for counter-battery fire in that it might prevent the attacking arty from supporting the infantry's attack. But if what happens is that the enemy arty just loses a tiny bit of readiness, it doesn't really make sense to use that, it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Right now, in the best case scenario the enemy's arty may suffer a strength loss due to your counter-battery fire, but you wouldn't be able to suppress it and it will keep on firing, until it spents all the amo. It makes more sense to target the infantry because the defensive fire may inflict up to 50% strength loss on the attacking unit and stop the attack in it's tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Another question: instead of build limits, could we have a manpower pool that units drain? This has more relevance for WW2, but for example, an "army" could drain 3 points of manpower, a tank corps 2, and so on. Placing restrictions on equipment based on historical production values is not really that effective when things such as oil or ball bearing shortages were a direct result of the fortunes of war. Perhaps another suggestion: could capturing oil increase your quotas of war machines? This would make them the strategic focus points they really were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I'll revive this thread for my suggestions. This one is simple: could unit swapping allow an attack for the swapped-in unit as well? Currently the swapped unit loses its turn. But similar to amphibious assaults, you could have its movement points reduced to 1, for example, and allow an attack. This would help immensely with the jigsaw puzzle of trying to figure out a space for your attacker to retreat to so that another unit can take his place to attack, without this movement taking up one of those all-important attack tiles. Of course, this'd just be a temporary retrieve until we can be done with the attack-shuffle altogether (wishful thinking) and we can stack, but that's for SC3 I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted December 17, 2011 Author Share Posted December 17, 2011 There is actually a counter-battery fire in the game, but as you said both of the arty units have to be within each others range. To be honest, I don't like this feature too much. I'd always prefer to target enemy's infantry instead of wasting amo on the counter-battery fire. There should be an option to set your arty to the defensive fire and choose if it should perform counter-battery fire or target attacking infantry. It would also help if players would be able to indicate which unit will be targeted first in case of the attack. That would help to target the strongest and most dangerous unit. It makes sense in situations when the amo is low. An example: The Turkish arty has only one shell left and it will automatically fire when the first Brit unit attacks. In this case, it would perform the counter-battery fire, after which there will be no amo left to support further defence. It would make more sense, to set the arty to target the British corps when it attacks, instead of wasting amo on counter-battery fire. Ivanov, I believe if you set the Arty to 'Silent' mode it will not perform the counter battery fire as desired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 But then it won't perform any defensive fire, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 But then it won't perform any defensive fire, either. Correct. I meant that I'd prefer my arty to fire at the enemy unit, not at enemy arty but there is no option to make this choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 One little request: please make HQs deploy with auto/manual (or whatever the option that lets you assign units and makes it fill up the empty slots automatically), it's always a bit annoying to have to switch it. I don't think anyone really plays with Auto anyway, it's that important. Here's hoping mountains will be defense +2 in the patch (in line with hills and forests being 1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I always play with auto on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 You mean...you never assign HQ attachments manually? How can you play that way? Well I mean against humans, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert.l.hatcher Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Can the carriers recon without moving their full distance first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts