Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emporer

1. Limitation attack on each unit
There should be a limitation in how many attacks a unit need to absorb in one turn. 1 attack from each different branch unit on a single unit should be enough. This limitation should be valid for all units from different branches type of unit as, example ground units, artillery, air attacks and naval attacks. This because of the limitation in the game system, turn based system.
It´s highly unrealistic to have unlimited attacks on 1 single unit. This will also give other units than a single units more importance in the warfare.
This mean that a single unit can have the following attacks on it to absorb:
Attack from 1 ground unit (Inf, mech, armor, special, cav etc)
Attack from 1 support unit (artillery)
Attack from 1 Surface Naval unit or 1 submarine
Attack from 1 air units attack or 1 carrier unit

2. Encircled units
It should not be possibile to be reinforce Units that are encircled.

cheers

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I think you should be respectful

I was referring to the part I quoted, that veteran players have made some impolite answers. Just a misunderstanding, all is good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elxaime

I have found, when playing someone at expert level you feel less and less like you are simulating WW2 and more like you are playing "the game." You HAVE to do certain things a certain way or get left in the dust. For example, the way expert players will cannibalize research at the start of the game to pour it into infantry, tanks and aircraft. Or roll the dice on wild diplomatic offensives that, if they succeed, more or less can end the game in 1941.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emporer

1. Limitation attack on each unit
There should be a limitation in how many attacks a unit need to absorb in one turn. 1 attack from each different branch unit on a single unit should be enough. This limitation should be valid for all units from different branches type of unit as, example ground units, artillery, air attacks and naval attacks. This because of the limitation in the game system, turn based system.
It´s highly unrealistic to have unlimited attacks on 1 single unit. This will also give other units than a single units more importance in the warfare.
This mean that a single unit can have the following attacks on it to absorb:
Attack from 1 ground unit (Inf, mech, armor, special, cav etc)
Attack from 1 support unit (artillery)
Attack from 1 Surface Naval unit or 1 submarine
Attack from 1 air units attack or 1 carrier unit

2. Encircled units
It should not be possibile to be reinforce Units that are encircled.

cheers

Hi Emporer,

Welcome to the game and I hope you are enjoying it.

1) As others have mentioned in this thread, what you've suggested here is likely to be too restrictive and as a result would in turn cause you some difficulty in maintaining an effective offensive and historical timelines.

Natural resistance to these suggestions would of course be coming from anyone that has played the game for a length of time, and many players that play head to head matches refer to game balance, and as developers, this is something we've worked hard to achieve since release over 2 years ago. Major changes like what you've proposed here would unfortunately take a long time to test and sort out, and this is not an excuse to not try something like this, but for those that have played for a long time, it is fairly conceivable that they would have a pretty good feel on what would work and what wouldn't, right off the bat sort of thing. As developers we would of course have our own opinions and are very careful of what we change as well.

And as others have mentioned here, it is not necessarily about right or wrong, but after years of discussion and debate on game rules/mechanics, and years of playing the game, it shouldn't be too surprising that some will feel strongly, and that some would have a pretty good idea of what would or would not work, or possibly be an improvement (or not) in game.

One suggestion I could make, and this may or may not change your opinion, would be to play test your proposed changes (with self restriction on attacks/swaps being applied as you've outlined) starting with the 1939 campaign in Hotseat mode and see how it goes. The battles for Poland, the Low Countries and France should quickly paint a better picture on your proposed mechanisms, versus the current defaults.

In the end you might still feel what you feel about the game, or perhaps, you might also then see some validity in what others have mentioned in their critiques of these suggestions.

2) This all depends on the definition of encircled as supply also plays a factor in game. Fully encircled and cut off from supply and this is indeed the case, i.e. a unit cannot reinforce unless it draws supply from an HQ, whereas if a unit can draw some supply from a city/town, then it will have limited reinforcement, and reinforcemnt can be further reduced through attrition and depending upon how many enemy units end up adjacent an encircled town/city as well.

This allows us to model a variety of things in game such as Leningrad, D-Day, as well as when a unit/resource is properly surrounded.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

...you're also still in need of something to break through and destroy the russian lines, especially as their infantry's hard defense values against tanks are 1.5 points higher than that of all other nations at the highest lvl, and that's also unrealistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973


4. Heavy tanks

Sugar mentioned something along the lines of removing HTs alltogether.
I kinda agree with this idea, SCWiE being a grand strategy game and heavy tanks being battalion sized units, historically. The "Tank" unit is SCWiE is more like a special unit having light, medium and heavy tanks in its composition (at least this is how i perceive them - historical pz groups were very large formations having tanks, motorized inf, regular inf, support units etc).
Having a full unit comprised of heavy tanks is a little bit exaggerated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973


4. Heavy tanks

Sugar mentioned something along the lines of removing HTs alltogether.
I kinda agree with this idea, SCWiE being a grand strategy game and heavy tanks being battalion sized units, historically. The "Tank" unit is SCWiE is more like a special unit having light, medium and heavy tanks in its composition (at least this is how i perceive them - historical pz groups were very large formations having tanks, motorized inf, regular inf, support units etc).
Having a full unit comprised of heavy tanks is a little bit exaggerated.

Verdict: I would rather see "heavy tanks" as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map. But then the force pools need rebalancing I guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ringoblood


I would agree with making heavy tanks as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

Some valid concerns here...I will throw my 2c on those issues:

1. Unit swapping


My verdict : unit swapping is a clever feature which prevents a trench type warfare.

2. Upcoming air force changes


My verdict: airforce attacking values may not be the real culprit here. Maybe experience gains should be toned down a little bit?

3. Proposed supply rules for naval units (subs/raiders)


Verdict: do not make subs/raiders utterly useless at zero supply. Scaling down their efficiency might be a better idea.

4. Heavy tanks


Verdict: I would rather see "heavy tanks" as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map. But then the force pools need rebalancing I guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

Some valid concerns here...I will throw my 2c on those issues:

1. Unit swapping

Indeed IRL, "swapping" a corps/army size unit is quite a huge logistical achievement. From this standpoint, yes it can be considered "unrealistic". But since this is a game, one needs to find ways to deal with certain bottlenecks and the swapping thingy solves this. The alternative being what? 5-6 bomber units? Is this realistic? Thousands of air units to break a fortified hex surrounded by marshes?
If the game was on a tactical level, played on a much larger map, it would be far easier to implement this issue in a more realistic manner. But since it is a grand strategy game, sometimes workarounds have to be implemented (workarounds that maybe tactically don't necessarily make sense).

My verdict : unit swapping is a clever feature which prevents a trench type warfare.

2. Upcoming air force changes

At first, any axis player will be pretty much upset about this, bombers being one of the main tools for breaking front lines in SCWiE.
But let's analyze it for a moment:
Some players are complaining that the axis bombers destroy everything in their path but the problem is WHEN? This effect is mostly felt during the russian campaign. People don't really complain about how unbalanced bombers are during the french campaign. Maybe the real reason is not the attack values of air units but the experience they aquire. By the time Axis fights in Russia, they have 2-3 star xp HQs and airfleets. Now that is scary. Not only airfleets are scary but have you seen a 2 star xp Panzer Group attached to a 2-3 star xp Manstein, do battle? You didn't? That's understandable, no one survived to tell the story :)

My verdict: airforce attacking values may not be the real culprit here. Maybe experience gains should be toned down a little bit?

3. Proposed supply rules for naval units (subs/raiders)

The problems for axis subs is that they have no possibility to resupply in the Atlantic. Historically, they were supplied by the milk cows (supply subs) or even surface supply vessels disguised in commercial ships. OFC it is not realistic at all to have a sub perform missions for half an year without resupply (as we do it in SCWiE) but penalizing their zero supply status with +50% combat losses, inability to raid and no dive chances seems a little bit too much. Basically, at least in the first years, it kinda turn them into suicide ships - you send them out, you can't resupply them, if they somehow don't get spotted it will take another half year to bring them home to resupply - I mean they quickly lose their usefulness. And if I play long term, i.e. saving them for when i get ports in France and better techs - i am missing their "happy time" - that is the first year of the war. As for the allies - they got ports everywhere so the supply issue is not really an issue.

Verdict: do not make subs/raiders utterly useless at zero supply. Scaling down their efficiency might be a better idea.

4. Heavy tanks

Sugar mentioned something along the lines of removing HTs alltogether.
I kinda agree with this idea, SCWiE being a grand strategy game and heavy tanks being battalion sized units, historically. The "Tank" unit is SCWiE is more like a special unit having light, medium and heavy tanks in its composition (at least this is how i perceive them - historical pz groups were very large formations having tanks, motorized inf, regular inf, support units etc).
Having a full unit comprised of heavy tanks is a little bit exaggerated.

Verdict: I would rather see "heavy tanks" as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map. But then the force pools need rebalancing I guess.