Operate vs Forced March

[Iron Ranger]

I've never completely liked the operate feature. The ability to 'beam' full army groups or more around the entire map seamed wrong. As operate normally deals with the rail system on the more recent SC games it indirectly deals with the amount and quailty of the rolling stock a nation or group controls. Its not like you can stockpile rail cars and engines in Moscow till you want to move that entire force in one surprise move to the black sea, you would have to space it out depending on your infastructer. Because of this I was excited to hear about another option, Forced March. Did some quick checks and here is what I came up with... granted basicly a single point of data but I think its enough.

Operated a DT from a Supply 10 city to another supply 10.. with no HQ support.

Start of your turn - Readness® 75 Moral (M) 100

End or your turn - R 60 M70.. did this twice came up with R 59 M 67 second time

Start of other players turn - counldnt check.. but from exp it seams to improve.

Start of the next Turn - R 73 M 96

So aside from the cost to move the unit you basicly lose nothing. No signicate drop in combat effectivness right after it gets out of the rail system. In fact when it should be more vounable, the start of the other sides turn its only sligtly weaked, unless it starts extreamly weak.

Force Marched a Corps from Supply 7, L6 support to exactly the same supply and support.

Start of your turn - R 75 M 70

End of your turn - R 63 M 46

Start of Your turn - R 73 M 66

So without costing MMPs you can travel twice the distance with minor problems. No real loss in combat effectivness. However unlike being tied to the rail system any unit can do this at any time assuming its over controled ground and not passing next to a enemy unit.

(Bug? - you cant use the CTRL key to 'guide' a unit.. it seams its AI path only like old SC)

Suggestions:

On the current system I would suggest (granted limited testing) to drop readness of units by X2 (or 3 or 4 if seams right to HC) that are operated. And drop moral of forced march units by the same amount.

Operated units are loaded (or partally flown) on to rail cars, unit coheasion is broken, weapons and men are seperated, the leadership (officers ect) are not effectivly communicating from top to bottom. A unit should not be just a ready for combat the next turn they are moved several hundered to thousand miles. Yes SC time lines are not the same so that could mean weeks to months but thats another issue.

Forced Marched units keep thier overall coheasion (sp) but with less regard to the mens overall well being. Meals are skipped, less sleep, more stress ect... Moral is going to suffer. Do you think the men force marched into Verdun in 1915 were happy. To see destroyed units going back the other way, and to ask and find out they had been on the line only a week. I'm sure they knew thier duty (readness maintained) that France was in great need if they were being Force Marched from one front to the other. But one look at the sky and the unit retreating and they had to know they might not see thier wife's again (massive drop in moral). Hard to think the next turn after the march they would have the same happy outlook as when they left.

Operate feature overall.

Personally I have never fully like the system, granted my dislike doesnt mean its wrong but perhaps it can be inproved on, suggestions:

option one: Make it limited (guys from 3rd reich would remember this). The number of operations per turn is controled, limited to 1 (or 2 or 3 per HC) per level of infastructure. The more rolling stock you control, and more effectivlly you use it the more units you can move over land. Germany at L2 could make 3 moves per turn at the start of the "call to arms" senerio (level 2). It would also be cheaper, like now, vs say Russia's. It would have to plan a head (this is a stregic level game, right?) where you want the army group to attack. Take out Romania, better start railing units a few turns ahead. No more 'star trek beaming' an army group from the western front to Palistine to deal with england, then beam them back to warsaw, then back to the western front a few turns latter to push back the French.

option 2: You can only operate over land you control for the current cost. If German units want to move from the western front to AH to face Serbia its going to cost more MMPs. Unsure what would be balanced, twice as much? Historically each nation fought the war under its own 'desires', poor communications, national objectives ect. You didnt see UK units railing over to Verdun en mass, too many problems with supply, chain of command ect. The world wouldnt see that kind of coraporation till WW2 between UK and USA.

Option 3: You Cant operate over another major powers controled ground. Example, German units heading to Palastine would move by rail from the western front to the edge of the AH empire. Get off the train there (one turn used) and get on a AH train to the edge of the Otoman Empire, get off the train there (two turns used) and get on a OE train to Palastine. Get off the train there (three turns used) and now enter into combat. Granted this seams harash, and perhaps would break the engine.

In none of these do I think you should limit or change the transport system. Moving troops, supply ect is always cheaper and easier by sea.. unless attacked. So it has its own risks.

Sorry for the spelling errors.

[Rabelesius]

I never saw this as a huge problem as you don't have many MPPs to spare for operational movement anyway....but a limit would be nice simulating rail limits. I am not so sure about the loss of readiness. The turns are quite long and troops moving by rail would be disrupted only during travel and not necessarily after when they reach an area where they can regroup.

[pzgndr]

I've often suggested a limited Strategic Redeployment ability (a la Third Reich) and an operational movement where units could get double AP as long as they're not adjacent to enemy before, during andafter movement. Too many Op Moves across the entire map too often just doesn't feel right at times.

[Colin I]

Especially air. Moving your entire USAF to India in a turn is just wrong. Aircraft may fly but they still need fuel and support staff and are not really that much more mobile on a strategic scale.

I like the X Op moves per level of infrastructure idea. Would also suggest a range cost - add extra MPP for the longer range operations.

[Hubert Cater]

I've seen the idea of Operational Points and played this in other games too, and I guess my original inspiration was to not have it so limiting and leave it up to the player based on how they wanted to spend their MPPs but I guess in the worst case it might not be a bad idea to have it as an option for down the road if this is something players would really like to see.

In terms of the design, I have thought about the idea of increased costs depending on the operational distance and more or less left it as is because it is currently a KISS implementation.

For example, I would have to add another layer to the Editor to help calculate what the costs should be for different sized maps and possible distances, and secondly some have argued in the past that the bulk of the operational cost was in the loading and unloading of the unit and once underway the additional time in transport was more or less negligible (cost wise) by comparison.

This is not to say that something like this cannot be added in the future, and granted the above may vary depending on the unit type as air unit operation I agree would be a bit of a different beast, but this is just to sort of paint a picture of where my thinking was on the subject.

For the morale losses, some interesting points here as well and we'll take a closer look to see if any further adjustments will be made.

[ev]

What about a maximum number of tiles per turn? Allow me to explain...

Long time ago I played a WWII European Theater game in which rail movement was limited up to so many rail hexes per turn. The maximum distance allowed was quite generous, though I don't remember the specifics.

My guess is that the rail distance limit should allow operating units from Warsaw to Paris in one single turn. But, it should take two turns to operate units from Rostov to Normandy. And, it should take three turns to operate a unit from the Urals to Portugal.

If you take this strategy, and, if you want to rail-operate a unit from one end of the map to the other, the player would in fact breakdown the rail-operationg in three turn steps, and, the player would have to pay three times (once each turn) for the rail-operation segment it is conducting in that turn. Accordingly it would cost three times as much to opearte a unit from the Urals to Portugal, than the cost of operating a unit from Warsaw to Paris.

[SeaMonkey]

It's really not the concept that is in question, Hubert is right in the original premise of KISS and thinking about how the AI will deal with the additional complication and the ability to implement it successfully.

Simply speaking in the relative comparison of how far a unit can move in comparison to the time of a SC turn, it's not outlandish, what comes into question is the unlimited number of units that can move that distance. Based upon the access of MPPs as the limiting factor sometimes represents an unreasonable situation that a nation would actually possess. Rail and airlift capacity as MPPs represent an instantaneous use of, rather than a reflection of a nation's level of infrastructure built up over time to move units a great distance.

So...easy and simply, the number of units available to use strategic movement should be based upon the infrastructure research level in addition to the reduced expenditure of MPPs. Now comes the question of connectivity, especially for air units, represented ....once again...by that LoC, which SC so desperately needs for operations and supply.

Think about flying, a wing, a group, a fliegerkorps, whatever, a great distance with some needed refueling stops. The distance to and the needed fuel at each stop is paramount to successfully completing the operation. Fighters can't fly as far as heavy bombers before refueling, but they can be disassembled and sea transported, or taken into flying range by a CV, so each air unit needs an operational range limitation.

Without going further, this post is too long already, I think we all can see that to represent "strategic movement" takes some in depth thought before a nice easy solution can be found, not just for Hubert to write but for the AI to effectively use.

[Glabro]

Well, in my mind, making the Infrastructure tech more worth it by limiting the rail transports would be a good idea.

[Baron]

I always wondered why you couldn't fly a unit farther than its range if not engaging in comabt. If you were changing bases wouldn't you have twice the distance you could fly since you are not having to worry about running out of fuel on the way home?

Being in transportation for 19 years I know a little about what is involved in moving units by land,air, and sea and to move a unit as large as a Corp or Army involves tremendous planning. It is not something done on a whim. Hitler moved the 2nd SS Panzer Corp (at least half of it) away from Kursk at the pivotal moment to intervene in Italy and then back again. The net effect was it didn't accomplish much anywhere.

I like the idea of Operational moves being tied to the infrastructure level of a country. Isn't that what the infrastructure tech represents? The more accomplished (tech level plus physical improvements) the logisticians the easier it would be to move more units rapidly. In adhering to the KISS principle why don't we limit the number of units that can operate to 1 plus the infrastructure level? All cost would still apply as it does cost to move the men and equipment.

Back to air units. Given the length of the turns why not limit an air units operational range to 4 times its normal range (twice its range if just changing bases as I propose) I'd also like to be able to move an air unit twice its normal range if I'm just moving it to a different location. As far as moving air units across Oceans they would have to stage (just like they did) at various places along the route to their destination. This would prevent the warping of aircraft all over the world at a moments notice. It would also make those islands on the way to Australia more important as well as W.Africa - I know I'm getting confused with Global.

As far as Strategic movement I wouldn't be opposed to ships being given twice their range also if they are not engaging in combat. If they do stumble upon the enemy they should suffer a "surprise" penalty.

[ev]

I always wondered why you couldn't fly a unit farther than its range if not engaging in comabt. If you were changing bases wouldn't you have twice the distance you could fly since you are not having to worry about running out of fuel on the way home?

The problem is broader than just rellocating the planes. You have to rellocte all the support staff and equipment (mechanics, communications, ammo and gas deposits, food, lodging, etc.). This support equipment is probably transported by road... and, the real question should be how far away can this support staff travel within the period of time represented by a turn.

...why don't we limit the number of units that can operate to 1 plus the infrastructure level? All cost would still apply as it does cost to move the men and equipment.

This is the problem I see: Say it is Oct 1939. Germany just conquered Poland, and the German player wants to operate his army from Poland to the French front. How many units will you allow the German player to operate?

Right now mpps give you the limit of units you can operate per turn. Why is this limit not good enough?

And, in the current sistem, the limit of operable units increase with tech... Infrastructure tech lowers operatin cost. And, a lower cost allows you to operate more units before you run out of mpps. Again, what is wrong with this limit?

The game is giving you a limit, and, a trade off. Removing rolling stock from the economic infrastructure reduces the amount of mpps available. How many units can you operate? Divide the number of mpps available by the cost of operating each unit, and the resulting number is your limit.

[vonRocko]

This is the problem I see: Say it is Oct 1939. Germany just conquered Poland, and the German player wants to operate his army from Poland to the French front. How many units will you allow the German player to operate?

Right now mpps give you the limit of units you can operate per turn. Why is this limit not good enough?

And, in the current sistem, the limit of operable units increase with tech... Infrastructure tech lowers operatin cost. And, a lower cost allows you to operate more units before you run out of mpps. Again, what is wrong with this limit?

The game is giving you a limit, and, a trade off. Removing rolling stock from the economic infrastructure reduces the amount of mpps available. How many units can you operate? Divide the number of mpps available by the cost of operating each unit, and the resulting number is your limit.

I agree. I don't feel there is a problem.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

I really like Forced March. Unfortunately I forget to use it quite often.. but I don`t see any problem at all. I think infrastructure doesn`t have anything to do with Forced March.. the unit itself simply moves at maximum speed and is not in combat formation, this is why it just works via friendly territory.

Has anyone played Civil War Generals? The game had two kinds of movement: march formation (no fighting, longer range) and combat formation (fighting possible, smaller range). The introduction of Forced March is pretty much the same.. two kinds of movement. And I think a limitations of Forced March is not necessary... and the available amount of MPPs limits the use of Operationl Movement.

I`m happy with the current setup.

[Bill101]

Civil War Generals? Yes, I loved it, and you're right, it did have those two modes.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Bill,

I forgot the nickname, but we have a guy here in the Forum who produced the Civil War General series (there were parts I and II). I cannot remember the name, but he was a rather old guy.. should be in the mid 60ies by now. If you check the member list for people between 65 and 67, you might find him. Told him that I really loved the series (although it was a Panzer General clone), and he admitted that he lost an awful amount of money with it... any clue who that was?

[SeaMonkey]

I kind of agree with ev and vR that the current configuration is not that bad except for the air units. The time relative to an SC turn would allow an air unit to just about circumnavigate the globe as long as there are the connecting support and landing facilities.

That's why the Pacific islands and others were so important as staging areas. One thing that always bothered me was that after conquering an island, it takes five turns to get to a 5 supply/50% efficiency level unless you land an HQ and even then you can't operate aircraft in until the facility(town or city) comes to the proper level. IIRC airbases were put into operations a lot quicker than the game models as 5 SC turns could be 2.5 months.

So ....as I've proposed before, we need to allow an engineer unit(ala SeaBees) to provide the supporting connective mechanism to extend the LoC and also give the Egr the same capability to amphib from any tile like the "Special Forces" unit. This will bring in more of the map for gameplay purposes as the Engineer unit represents an immediate logistical base. I might also add that for SC3, the stacking of an air unit with a ground unit should be accomodated. In fact, if we want to continue to use the auxiliary units like anti-air, artillery, anti-tank in the regular global game then perhaps they should be accomodated for stacking also with the larger formations to simulate attachments.

[ev]

A lot of stuff in this thread. Iron Ranger brought a whole list of concerns in his starting remarks, and, I am afraid we may be sidelining some the points he brought forth.

I agree with some of his concerns: For example, I do not like the fact that you can operate units from one end of the map to the other (from Portugal to the Caspian Sea) in one single turn.

I do not agree with other points he made: I think the mpp cost to operate represents a good enough limit on the number of units that a player may operate in a single turn.

But, Iron Ranger brought two additional points on which I am of a double mind: He suggested that the readiness/morale penalties for (a) operating and ( force marching were too low.

Any comments on these last two points?

[Big Al]

Hubert you could change it simply to this....

The level of infrastructure determines your # of operational movement. Each level increases this amount. I believe the variables are already in the editor to do this. The code just needs to be changed. You can make it expensive to increase.

[Hubert Cater]

Just wanted to pop in and say that we'll make some morale loss changes for the next build as Iron Ranger is correct in that the losses do not seem to be enough once your subsequent turn arrives.

[Sharkman]

I would like to suggest some kind of limit to the operational movement of air units, especialy short range aircraft, some of the present operational movements seem impossible, like the Germans operationaly moving me-109's from Germany to Iceland.

In exchange the air units could get a function similar to forced march allowing them a double range change-base move.

I would also support a heavier morale loss on forced marched units, but there should be some distictions: I don't think units defending should be heavily penalized, but it should be very difficult to attack on the turn following a forced march.