|
OxfordGuy3 -> RE: On the Fence (1/31/2017 2:03:59 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Iņaki Harrizabalagatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
quote:
manpower is handled by having "Hard" builds as an option.
It is not and I hope you stop claiming this. Let me explain, using Finland and CEaW as an example. Finland was a country of four million people. Compared to Germany's 70 million, and Russia's 170 million, Finland had a limited pool of manpower. In CEaW Finland will start the war at 100% Manpower but with casualties this will quickly fall to 75%, then 50%, causing reduced efficiency. You may continue to add replacement to Finn units, and rebuild destroyed Finn units all you want, but eventually you are below 25% and have a mass of untrained ten year olds.
In SC3, you can use the Finn's units to your hearts content, attacking everywhere, taking magnificent losses, losing as many Finn units as you want, all to be rebuilt at no penalty other than some MPP's. MPP's do not represent nor abstract Manpower, nor do Build Limits. All countries that participated in WWII were faced with manpower shortages. Yes, even the USSR.
It's the same with oil.
If SC3 were ever to include these features, they could be made optional so as to not mandatorily increase complexity. Therefore, no reason to react adversely when others bring up these important but missing features of the WWI strategy.
And what about a game in which you can have the entire Whermacht supplied from Bengazi, or whatever obscure town in the Middle East?
That's also something CEAW-GS manages quite well, though with the supply constraints of SC3, I'm not sure how needed this is.
|
|
|
|
