Unit Simplicity. A needed war upgrade - Aries

War weapons, and ammo, have been made cheaper and is a game trend. This, combined with the general status of the upper tier of top war players, has led to war management being unnecessarily complex. Many units must be deployed, on offense and defense, to fight a modern Simcountry war. On the attack, this can be especially cumbersome with the need to disband and remake dozens of units to amount an effective attack against even a modest defense, made more difficult if an attack is not mounted adjacent to the attacked country (waiting for supply units in a heated war is not an option). Navies are particularly disadvantaged if they must be positioned away from their home as moving and managing a dozen or more fleets, as not uncommon, is a cumbersome exercise.

On a more game immersion side, no attachment is easily made to a player's units as they are treated as throwaway tools on offense and as one of many units on defense. Careful grooming

I am experienced enough with testing of war features but have never fought an all out war against any of the biggest war lords simcountry has to offer. Getting as much practical experience as some of you guys have is not really an option so threads like this offer us some much needed insight. I'll take this to the next meeting and see what we can do to work on changes for this.
War is and always will be complicated in simcountry. We can however try to do everything possible to make it a less complicated and more pleasurable experience.

As I understand it, your biggest issue with warfare is that the ever growing numbers of units/weapons are practically unmanageable.

Any further input would be greatly appreciated.

Five years ago we had the most thorough discussion about how to improve war, and W3C made detailed plans. Most of this work list has not been implemented.

Discussions are nice. But implementation of promises is nicer.

when i read that, boy do i wish i'd shut up, and ofcourse i keep going, i'll own it, it was me, but i was also right about a good many things

that thread was basically a way to justify the losers of a big war, in the 5 years that have followed, we've discovered that playing to hard to the losers, only dissuades winners

the biggest one, is giving the defender the options to make the war active at any time, that means, you can spend months building, calculating, figuring out things, then your opponent gets 48hrs to catch up, but instead, you must spend 48 hours refreshing your news, just to make sure they blindside you. its a good thing i don't play the war game any more, just sell HQ weapons and ammo

from what i've seen, this game is always on the tip of being historically great, people will mention the wars, and and the conflict on the daily news, but the balance between defense and offence is fickle, 2 much e

Jonni, I don't understand what the rush is to see what you "can do to work on changes for this." I think the current set up is just fine. LRD's and LD's can be molded into whatever shape you want them to be as it is. You can shape divisions that are defensively slanted, that are protected, and still pack punch.

Creating these super divisions sounds like the land war equivalent of the super navy and we all know how that turned out.

Further, the proposition is made with the intent to provide a super unit land defense. However,what would prevent an aggressor from using this same super unit or UNITS from bullying a neighbor? Such a unit could be molded to be indesctructible or at least extremely difficult to take out as it paints your country in war.

It doesn't sound like a real war scenario and not very realistic.

I know there were some concerns about the reduction of the size of the land units.

in reference to madocks's post...

Jo Skallid, i'm calling you out...

lets have this discussion, what best for the game, and war game. you avoided me 5 years ago, we both had points to make, so...

you and me, lets talk right here!

Nero

"I think the current set up is just fine. LRD's and LD's can be molded into whatever shape you want them to be as it is. You can shape divisions that are defensively slanted, that are protected, and still pack punch. "

Yes, but have you ever faced an enemy that could field dozens, maybe hundreds, of helicopter and interceptor wings with similar numbers of federation wings? How many divisions did you have to create to overcome this adversary? I would appreciate details of your experience of when, where, and who you fought in this encounter.

As Jonni said and my goal aligns, the need is to simply reduce the management hassle that occurs in that war. The attacker retains the option to make dozens or more divisions and meticulously maneuver them to a target but why should there not be an option to make this easier?

"Creating these super divisions sounds like the land war equivalent of the super nav

The idea is very interesting @Aries, would be amazing to see such a division or more in the field.

I guess we'll never get a chance to see it...at least not any time soon hehe ;)

@Nero. You have a point. I'll try to clarify the current position.
As of now the only thing we've decided on is that the war game would benefit if we simplified the logistics. Easier unit management/creation, and if feasible, a decrease in volume of units, weapons and targets.

Other than that, I don't think the balance of offensive/defensive capabilities is in need of a change.
Of course we're open to any and all further suggestions on the subject.

The war games already too easy and I kinda like the organisation side of running a ground invasion. There's a few tricks that can give you an edge and catch the other guy out. Keep it the same please.

Been playing hearts of Iron Aries? Sounds like it with your Fronts and multipliers idea

This is Gaz btw. The GM has blocked my other account.

Jonni can you give me acces to the forum with my other account? I'd like to give an opinion on some of these matters.


Gaz

...........

........

Forgive me if I'm wrong but what your talking about Aries is breaking an air defence. There's a difference when both parties are fighting. In that scenario the the complexity (if you could call it that) is quite useful.


Gaz

Gaz is right. The war game is a series of tricks to manage the huge complexity of the upper level war game. If a player overcomes the challenge of massing the forces necessary to fight such a war, a player armed with the knowledge to overcome the unneeded game complexity will take his lunch money.

I have fought wars like this. This is why I am curious for those who don't see an issue here. There appears to be two camps who may be for no change in unit creation. Those who have not fought such wars and war veterans who wish to maintain an edge on large war newbies. Should the management difficulties of a large war involving many weapons be a competitive advantage? Does this lead to to the current situation where war expertise is found on very few players?

I am for making the management of war easier. It is one thing to teach a new player what weapons are effective in what roles, ranges, and general war strategy. It is another to teach a

I like the idea would definitely help in managing large amounts of units and not having to go back and dismantle the unit and remake it, IS ALWAYS A PLUS ! supply units take to long for offensive weapons


THE DIPLOMATIC REPUBLIC OF REDNECK LAND'S

@ Aires:

"Yes, but have you ever faced an enemy that could field dozens, maybe hundreds, of helicopter and interceptor wings with similar numbers of federation wings? How many divisions did you have to create to overcome this adversary? I would appreciate details of your experience of when, where, and who you fought in this encounter."

Yes I have under my old "Federation of Kildare" . I did so as an associate of the 3m's and fought many wars. I don't recall ever having to create many divisions. The attacks never came from bordering countries. I also fought Crazy Eye and someone named Pink Panther #1. In the Panther War, he had a huge amount fixed defensive wings and mobile units. He started attacking my unprotected countries so I went into war protection armed myself and eventually took him out in long struggle which involved our entire empires. He had 30 something countries and we went at it. While he was away I

Yeah it's true, that a few of us are capable in the use of certain "tricks" to our advantage. Which is why i thought your idea was interesting...but it will not see the light of day.

Nero:

So, how many units to overcome a "huge" amount of defensive wings and mobile units?

"The unit's defensive
makeup will come into play in total once the unit is attacked. Properly configured, that unit could be very difficult to take out."

The unit does not defend with more than the base size of the unit before the multiplier. For example, no more than 850 weapons in a division. I am interested to see an example of your "properly configured unit".

"A long range deployment of units should not be made easy to begin with."

What? Why not? It is one thing to properly plan and prepare. It is another to deal with unneeded unit management mess.

Aires:

If "The unit does not defend with more than the base size of the unit before the multiplier", then why bother to have it at all? It changes nothing. Just leave things as they are.

With regards to your proposal to simplify long range deployment of units, you asked "why not"? I would think the reason is very obvious. By nature, you have to provide additional units such as air transport, RDF, military remote depots and the supply units that go with all that. If you feel that going through all that is a burden, then the GM already offers you an easy way around it. Simply take a C3 near the enemy and transfer weapons into it. How much easier can it get? In fact, we have vets such as yourself transferring mass amounts of stored weaponry in space stations and developing militarized countries on other planets in a fortnight. Personally, I think it's too easy now. If anything, this mass transfer of weaponry from space

"If "The unit does not defend with more than the base size of the unit before the multiplier", then why bother to have it at all?"

This makes it apparent that you missed two entire sections of the original post. The top details "why" and there are three paragraphs detailing how such units act when attacked.

Also, why would be so terrible to create a few units to deploy 2500 aircraft or more rather than creating dozens of wings? Not everyone finds excitement in the endless management of units. Lets make the war game more inclusive.

Lastly, if you have a problem with space, this is not relevant to the discussion here. Please take that discussion to an appropriate headed topic so a proper discussion takes place.

I read the whole post and it dealt with the attack strategy. I asked what about the defense and you said the multiplier would apply to defense. I asked then what is the difference and you say it makes for easier management. Personally, I think it will make no difference in time management. But the more I think of this, I guess why not? It makes no difference. So long as this is an option and we retain the right to deploy individual units at 850 weapons and we do not have standardized amounts of weapons like the GM has done with the naval fleets, I can't find a reason to object to it. In fact, I think it is a great idea. I will place it up for vote, as your idea. I'm not being sarcastic, you have actually changed my mind about this. Maybe not for the same reasons you want this change, but I do see a different merit in this change. Jonni, please make sure this is on the top of the agenda in the next meeting.

As for space. I merely pointed

This suggestin would be extremely useful. In order to get the most out of an attack, you need to have MAX weapons per unit. However, after 1 attack against a defense that sustains some losses, you no longer have the best attack (you now have something like 9/10 the weapons).

In practice, this means you need to remake that unit to again achieve the best ratio that you wish to use. If you have 3 units of the same weapons next to each other, you get 3 "best" shots, and then the rest of the shots have reduced effectiveness.

In theory, what if you had 3 of the same unit next to each other - those should be able to reload the first unit, and have optimal shooting until weapons run out.

I'm all for Aries' suggestion AS LONG as the amount of weapons firing each time remains maxed at current numbers (such as 850 for an LRD).

I think multiple unit groupings is a great idea. I am all for a more streamlined unit movement process. Aries suggestion doesn't seem like it will have any unbalancing affect on the game. I don't see how this would be any different than making multiple units of the same configuration and moving them all at once in unison, aside from them being more organized and eliminate some potentially unnecessary clicking. This game could use some streamlining in areas.. And this is probably one of them.