lettowvorbeck Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 In another thread I suggested a % chance of trench/fort level reduction instead of the automatic single step loss. As the current system works, I feel it is impossible to hold on to Verdun against a determined german attack from the historical angles (surrounded on roughly 3 sides) -- one artillery unit blows away all nine fort steps and an attack by 5 or 6 corps just blast their way in. how about 50% chance of trench reduction and 33% for fort levels with each HA "shot"? I like the idea of some variability in HA attacks rather than inevitability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I would prefer to stop allowing those rotation attacks. Either fight or move. But when entering friendly trenches you shouldn't be allowed to attack after you moved your unit into the empty trenches. This would end the option that up to 8 or even more corps can attack a single defending unit (attack, move out of the trenches, replacement moves into the trenches and attacks. Next tile the same. And the same. And the same). This might slow down everything. For me this is quite realistic, considering that the WW1 battlefields were often mud, mud and muddy mud. You wouldn't lose as many units as today, but this way you would have more money to buy planes, guns, diplo chits and research points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettowvorbeck Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 well it does sort of compensate for the lack of stacking in the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crispy131313 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I couldn't agree more with xwormwood! Playing the campaign I have found all of the games extra features such as diplomacy, air battles, research etc. to be totally unneccessary and is a deterent from victory. The best strategy is the rotation, and the best strategy is mass corps. Diplomacy etc. enhances replay value, but it's hard to go in that direction when essentially you are only artificially making the game last longer vs. the AI by doing so. Therefore I give my support to killing the 8x rotation gimic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Are you seeing this just against the AI or in multiplayer too? Also, is it just on one front or more widespread? Only if there are specific causes then we may be able to fix them another way. I have other ideas too but I would welcome some more detailed feedback first. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crispy131313 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I have not yet played a human opponent with WW1, so my statement reflects solely against an AI opponent. I can say however, I have found this to be the case on the Eastern and both Western Fronts. In previous SC2 games these mass attacks were just as effective but not as widespread across the map, you had to really focus your forces to overwhelm a target or objective. In WWI this type of strategy can be used against nearly every front line unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I can see the value of this suggestion but I would urge caution on making radical changes to the game so early on and especially on the basis of experience against the AI. To take the Verdun example, I am not sure the rotation tactic will work againt against a human opponent with good HA. A reasonable player will see the attack coming at least a turn befre it is launched and he could then take steps to break it up by use of HA and preemptinve attacks of his own or let the Germans, take Verdun incuring casalties as they do so, and then just kick out the wekened occupier the next turn. The Ai in this game isn't bad, but it isn't, and can't be, as creative as a human player. I really do think the game needs to bed down a bit more before big changes are made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettowvorbeck Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 I agree. There should be a lot of pbem play before any drastic changes could even be considered. I can see the value of this suggestion but I would urge caution on making radical changes to the game so early on and especially on the basis of experience against the AI. To take the Verdun example, I am not sure the rotation tactic will work againt against a human opponent with good HA. A reasonable player will see the attack coming at least a turn befre it is launched and he could then take steps to break it up by use of HA and preemptinve attacks of his own or let the Germans, take Verdun incuring casalties as they do so, and then just kick out the wekened occupier the next turn. The Ai in this game isn't bad, but it isn't, and can't be, as creative as a human player. I really do think the game needs to bed down a bit more before big changes are made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts