| Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - 08:16 pm |
This is an update to the suggestion found here:
The original goal of simplifying unit management is still sorely needed. A recent war has made it clear that war length is as much of a concern. The war between Whiteboy and I contained no less than 10 full hours of heavy combat spread out between two days, with blackout period between. Some of what was said about the war can be found on the General Forum under the title "WB's Last Fight".
I don't believe Simcountry is intended to ask this type of time commitment of players who may simply be defending their assets. The temporary war protection mechanic is there to add protection during vacation and other times where a player wished to protect their countries from the threat of war. That mechanic is not sufficient to allow for any time a player does not have 10 hours to spend defending their country. Blackouts also proved insufficient to this task as, even with his blackout periods set, many hours could be unnecessarily imposed on a player to defend their empire.
The rate of reinforcement has been sighted as possibly being too fast, enabled by shuttles, compared to the pace of combat. Changing the replenishment ability of shuttles, however, would have reach beyond combat to make simply day-to-day use of shuttles more frustrating. Players who simply manage their empire peacefully should not experience a change in their game-play to fix combat.
The solution to make managing units simpler, reduce the lengths of wars, and to balance pace of combat with the rate of reinforcement is to increase the size of military units. All military units, garrisons, mobile units, etc. should be increased in size by a factor of 10. Further, the cash reward of c3s should be similarly increased to account for the additional military capability of computer countries (leave their number of units the same, multiply their weapons/unit by 10).
This would see a marked benefit in all three areas.
1. Instead of managing many dozens of units, in particular interceptor and helicopter wings, a player would be able to concentrate their military power in fewer units. This would be much easier to manage, especially when under fire.
2. The lengths of wars would be less as battles would be more decisive. Rather than each click ordering weapons numbering in the hundreds to attack, it will now be possible to order thousands of weapons at a click. Hundreds of initiated attacks would be replaced by dozens. To alleviate some fear on the defensive end, an attacker would still be required to attack and destroy many defensive installations for victory, such as defense fortifications.
3. The pace of combat would now be more balanced with the rate of reinforcement. A decisive strike against a defense, or even the attacker's assembled offensive units, would now be possible before an opponents has time to shuttle in reinforcements. This allows more strategy in these conflicts, making what is on the ground more important rather than a relative instant ability to simply draw reserve weapons and units from storage.
| Wednesday, March 2, 2016 - 12:00 am |
Would it still be possible to create those smaller, more specialised units? I like the fact that I can potentially spread out military forces and place the specific branches there where they can reach their maximum potential. In case of such 'superunits,' would this effect not be largely lost?
| Wednesday, March 2, 2016 - 12:26 am |
Good question. I think the minimum size of units can remain the same. This would continue to allow small units for painting and counter-painting use, like battalions and occupation units.
I do believe that special forces units should be changed in a way that they can continue to paint a map but would lose their ability to block enemy units. That would remove a gamey tactic of clustering hundreds of such units on a map and is counter to a goal of long tedious combat. I have seen that tactic alone be sufficient to prevent victory for an opponent with a slower internet connection.
| Friday, August 19, 2016 - 08:31 pm |
You and Whiteboy are two of the largest empires in Simcountry. The changes necessary to make your combat easier is not needed by the majority of players, is it?
1)I think having units capable of fielding thousands or tens of thousands is going to upset play balance and possibly do some strange things to the combat mechanics. Having multiple units requires each to be destroyed. So there is an upside on both sides of that equation.
2)Are you saying the war index is going to change in requirements? If so, how? It already requires a substation amount of damage be done to the target. How will this effect combat mechanics to those of us who do not have a military numbering in the millions of combat systems?
Regarding shuttles and setting up units. The shuttle capacity isn't the place to look to simplify things. The place to look is in the keeping of those large numbers of weapon systems in storage, with no costs. Introduce costs, those numbers will come down. Less numbers, less need of simplifying.
3)Would setting up an attack list, or priority list be easier? Once set up, only one click at a time would be needed. No changes needed to the numbers in a unit. Example - select x from a list. attack defenses until x, (like no defensive losses), then attack Y.
I think if you change the numbers of weapon systems in a unit, your also going to have to look long and hard at combat mechanics.
| Sunday, August 21, 2016 - 08:53 pm |
Counter Suggestion: Allow more Unit Formations, with a threshold of War Levels to achieve. Battalion,Regiments,Divisions, Corps, Army, Army Group etc.
While not an unlimited amount of weapon systems, it would help ameliorate the problem of button clicking. And tying it to War Level could help protect the lower level player - who in all probability could not field the larg(est) formations without unduly upsetting game progression.
FB would be a special case, as it is the War World. Perhaps some extended form of beginner protection on that world to help the new arrival reach those lofty numbers?
| Sunday, August 21, 2016 - 09:18 pm |
It sounds to me like the solution would be more autonomy/intelligence to units. Particularly for defensive units. Offensive units would have formations with objectives. Once these were met or a certain amount of losses experienced, they unit would ask for more instructions. Historically the best armies are the ones who can operating on their own intiatize down to the squad level.
I suppose if you were fighting over multiple countries things could be quite intense. Countries have no terrain affects to movement, which would also make things more interesting and easier/harder depending on which side you were.