Tulius Hostilius
Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: The Land
I see your OOB has a lot of low-strength units in it. I'd suggest it might be worth considering making more use of division and brigade sized counters if that's likely to be the case?
The way the game system works out is that for most combat units, a Strength 5 or 6 unit is pretty much entirely ineffective (less effective than a division-sized unit at full strength). However the unit can also be expanded to strength 10 making it a fully effective corps-level unit. So you end up with a double problem - too little capacity, but too much potential. Also the map gets cluttered.
I think the issue is less for things like missile batteries which are less likely to take damage, though of course artillery can still do de-entrenchment even at very low strength.
Thanks for the feedback and the concerns. Honestly, it is good to have someone to discuss this, since this is for now a one man’s project, and pointing issues will help me to think out of my box. Besides, if there is out there someone willing to join the project, I urgently need help in several areas (bitmaps, sounds, scripts…). PM me.
Yes, the units below-strength are fully intentional.
This is the idea, let us see if it works, when the playtests begin:
I think they reflect in a more correct way the OOBs and their peace value, that for one side many are basically cadre units that in case of war will be filled with the reserves/territorial units, and for other side others are from Third World countries that just have small armies or units scattered around the country (we see also that in the 1939 Scenario). About the first case, for instance, the Soviets had +118 Motor Rifle Divisions (that would give +/-39 Mechanized Corps), but many were Level 2 and 3. Level one is +90%, Level 2 around 75%, Level 3 around 50% (if my memory doesn’t fail me, still didn’t do the USSR). So, in this case, the Equipment is there, but the men aren’t. The units must be refilled, MPPs spent (and the MPPs are never enough). So most of the Soviet units in Eastern Europe (East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia), Afghanistan and the Paratroops will be around 9/10 but in Western Russia and in the Chinese border around 7/8 (Level 2), and Central Asia around 5 (Level 3). This delays the Soviet initial capacity for some turns, and they can’t attack all the places at the same time, overrunning them. But the capacity is there. All the Warsaw Pact Countries will have their units also below strength. Bulgaria and Romania are the worst cases. Poland and East Germany will be better. Also on the NATO side the units don’t have all their full strength. But the US, UK, units in Germany (and maybe the US in South Korea) are better that the ones in the respective countries (9 versus 6 or 7).
Also outside Europe, some minors have some potential capacity, but will need MPPs from the major, to see their units becoming fully operational (money to pay the troops, ammunitions, logistical issues…), so the major will have to decide if wants to reinforce the front units that are currently fighting, or begin to strength other places around the world. Because even at level 10 the previous under strength units will have to recover the morale and effectiveness for a couple of turns.
So, at least initially, in some third world war theatres we will see a war of the poor. Both sides have units in place, but no effective offensive capacity until the major looks to that theatre of war, maybe bringing HQs, and reinforcing with MMPs the units.
So the “too little capacity, but too much potential” is intentional and often I hope that generate strategic decisions. Bring up to strength forces in place A or place B on the other side of the World?
(France had this under strength problem in the 1939 Scenario – I mention often this scenario because it was the scenario that I played more).
Cluttering the map is a concern, but that is also because I join units to corps and divisions as much as I can. If I downsize the units (using more brigades and divisions), to bring them to full strength, we will have smaller units later and will create initially offensive capacity were there isn’t or shouldn’t be none. And in general terms the Soviet Bloc will be better prepared, for instance, Cuban units are at 9 and have experience 1, so they can be fully prepared for a US invasion. Also Israel and South Africa are at these high levels, so an initial momentum can be created in some areas, while others can be a slum for some turns.
Obviously, this is the current plan, and all can go down if this doesn’t work as expected.
|
Printable Version
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread