| Saturday, March 28, 2015 - 06:05 am |
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, care, and naming of units is a rare sight in Simcountry. No one declares on a forum that they have been prompted to deploy "The mighty 11th division" or the "Elite Mule brigade" to meet potential threats to their empire. These issues can change with a needed unit creation upgrade. Here is how it works.
1. The Multiplier
When creating a unit, a new option is available to multiply the chosen weapons and ammo selected for the unit. The multiplier defaults to "1" and, if not changed, the unit is created normally. If the multiplier is increased, all weapons and ammo selected are increased by the multiple selected.
-Want to deploy 2500 aircraft to help an ally? Today, it would take the creation of 20 wings. With this change, you could create 1 or 2 units and change the multiple.
-Need to create and move 8500 weapons on the attack? This would require creating and moving 10 divisions on the map. Needing to position each one individually to its target. With this change, a single unit could be created, a division with a multiple of 10.
2. Unit Frontage
To maintain combat balance, not all weapons in a unit enlarged with the multiplier may see combat at the same time. This also makes sense as one could see a real combat unit engaged with the enemy while other elements of the same unit haven't yet entered the battle.
On the attack:
When an enlarged unit attacks, it has a cap of the number of weapons that can be selected for the attack equal to the normal size of the base unit. For example, a division may have been created with 8500 weapons using a x10 multiple but only 850 weapons may be selected at a time for the attack, similar to the caps one experiences when creating a unit.
When defending, an enlarged unit will engage with the unit configuration selected before the multiple, until it may be understrength, as normal, due to losses. Some examples:
A unit created with 8500 mid range missile batteries is attacked. 850 weapons receive the attack and the unit losses 250 weapons. The unit now has 8250 weapons and receives another attack. It again has 850 weapons receive the attack. This repeats until less than 850 weapons are available in which all weapons are attacked as normal.
In mixed weapon units, the original unit configuration, before multiple, dictates the weapons that receive the attack. For example, a unit designed to deal with air threats as well might have 5000 mid range missile batteries and 3500 offensive anti-aircraft missile batteries (which is a division with 500 mid range missile batteries and 350 offensive anti-aircraft missile batteries with a multiple of 10). If this unit is attacked, 500 mid range missile batteries and 350 offensive anti-aircraft missile batteries receive the attack. This continues similar to the example of a unit created with a single weapon type. However, if losses occur unequally, the unit may be short one of the weapon types. If this unit was left with 200 mid range missile batteries and 1500 offensive anti-aircraft batteries, the 200 mid range missile batteries and 350 offensive anti-aircraft missile batteries receive the attack. If the mid range missile batteries are then lost and the unit is left with 1200 offensive anti-aircraft missile batteries and receives another attack, 350 offensive anti-aircraft missile batteries receive the attack. In short, the unit never has more weapons of a given type available than the base configuration of the unit, before the multiple is applied.
Mixed weapon units and strategy:
With this change in mind, it is possible to create units with a mix of offensive and defensive units with a multiplier that offers weapons to defend the unit, if attacked, and still has available the ability to launch an attack with the number of weapons up to the full base unit size (850 weapons for a division). This is a welcome game addition that allows offensive units to have some defensive ability when deployed to the combat area. It will be fun to use strategy to create units with needed offensive ability balanced with defensive weapons to ward off attack for these large formations.
3. Attack Memory
This is an enhancement that would be nice on its own but is even more welcome with this addition. After a given unit is used to launch an attack, the next attack will default to the same weapons used. For example, if the unit described earlier with a mix of mid range missile batteries and offensive anti-aircraft missile batteries is called to deal with a garrisons defense, the player may wish to attack with just 850 mid range missile batteries. If this attack is made, when the player selects the next target, the game will already default to use 850 mid range missile batteries, or as many mid range mid range missile batteries that are available if the unit is reduced to less than 850.
I believe these changes will make war simpler and a more enjoyable experience. Any questions?
| Saturday, March 28, 2015 - 12:18 pm |
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.
| Saturday, March 28, 2015 - 07:03 pm |
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.
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 06:11 am |
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 each way, and you destroy the GAME
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 08:17 am |
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. But the GM has proven that this reduction, which is associated with the deflationary program currently underway, has not impacted the offensive/defensive effect of land divisions.
Finally, I haven't read any posts or heard anyone complain about the current land division set up. Perhaps you should wait for others to add their input on this matter before forming an opinion and rushing to present it at the next meeting.
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 08:44 am |
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!
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 09:06 am |
"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 navy and we all know how that turned out. "
My understanding is that the "super navy" could engage with all its weapons. These enlarged units will not fight with greater numbers of weapons than an equivalent unit at one time. I do not see the comparison.
"Such a unit could be molded to be indesctructible or at least extremely difficult to take out as it paints your country in war. "
I do not see how this is possible. Like any other war, a land division is extremely vulnerable if you lack air defense protection and molding the unit to deal with multiple threats on defense makes it weak to everything. Maybe if you present an example unit using the rules I presented, this will shed further light on your concern.
"Finally, I haven't read any posts or heard anyone complain about the current land division set up."
War is rare (of which this is one of several of my suggestions to encourage more use of this feature). I am sure the very few experienced war players will trickle in during the week and support this idea.
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 09:49 am |
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 ;)
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 12:38 pm |
@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.
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 04:54 pm |
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.
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 04:57 pm |
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 05:00 pm |
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 05:19 pm |
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.
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 05:56 pm |
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 player how to overcome the management mess the war can turn in to.
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 07:57 pm |
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
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 07:59 pm |
"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 tore down his air defenses on his main with ground assistance. In another war, the scenario allowed me to sneak attack the offensive bases of the enemy removing his ability to deploy his numerous air defenses and take advantage of the weapons he had transferred from his space station. He was supposedly a #5 ranked war lord on FB and I reduced his WI to around 20 in about 1 hour. Unfortunately, my own blackout took effect and another player who was at war with him finished him off much to my chagrin. But all is fair. I can list other examples, every war presents a different scenario. But I don't think I did anything different than what another vet would have done if presented with similar scenarios. I have been in wars against Bobo, some guy named Umit and others but I don't remember all the names. In some wars I fought alone,with the 3m's and with my old cohort named Neidy who unfortunately has left the game for good, or so she says. Overall, I won some and I lost some.
You said: "My understanding is that the "super navy" could engage with all its weapons. These enlarged units will not fight with greater numbers of weapons than an equivalent unit at one time. I do not see the comparison."
Your focusing on the offensive part of the super unit capability. I speak of the defensive part. 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. Also your original post spoke of a long range deployment. A long range deployment of units should not be made easy to begin with. But in any event, my reply spoke of nearby countries that have substantial defensive air support which would protect the super unit.I asked in my original response, 'what would prevent an aggressor from using this same super unit or UNITS from bullying a neighbor'? Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Based on what Jonni said in her reply, It sounds like the GM is only considering a tweak in the war game and not yet another wholesale change and I am glad to hear that. Perhaps this whole discussion is academic.
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 08:02 pm |
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.
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 09:14 pm |
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.
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 11:00 pm |
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 into country space stations for storage is already way out of control and maybe needs to be looked at again by the GM.
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 11:44 pm |
"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.
| Monday, March 30, 2015 - 03:55 am |
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 out that creating a C3 or using space to transfer weapons eliminates the need for long range deployment of weapons from country to country if it is a burden. You didn't directly address that response, so I don't know what you think of that.The space issue does belong under different topic. It's a sensitive topic for space vets. However, perhaps under a different topic heading, the space vets can explain why having this overwhelming advantage over the one planet players is such a good thing for the game. Hopefully, the GM will join in and let us know why this was set up this way.
This is my last post on this topic.
| Monday, March 30, 2015 - 06:37 am |
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).
| Monday, March 30, 2015 - 04:16 pm |
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.