More unit attrition/ Scorched earth

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • More unit attrition/ Scorched earth

      Do you agree, disagree, or differ with my opinion 14
      1.  
        I Agree (6) 43%
      2.  
        I Disagree (5) 36%
      3.  
        I like the Idea, but have a better way to implement it (3) 21%
      Hello, I want to suggest a system in Call of War that would add more advanced unit attrition, in addition to the ability to use a scorched earth policy as a viable tactic.

      1. Unit attrition- The current system doesn't seem to favor any encirclement tactics. Though provinces lose morale, the units inside are mostly unaffected. This hurts any encirclement strategy, because leaving these units unchecked allows them to wreak havoc on you inner cities and industry, while leaving behind units to keep them there weakens the main assault force. I think that a system should be enacted that would cause any encircled units to gradually lose health, and thus make fast encirclement movements more effective.

      2. Scorched Earth- When capturing a province, all the building in said province lose some health, however, it is often easy to repair, and repairs back to the same level it was at when captured. The use of rockets and bombers is a good way to destroy industry, however, especially when your in a losing scenario, producing rockets and bombers takes away from your infantry and armor production, not allowing you to continue more defensive production. I recommend a system that would allow your buildings to be entirely destroyed, requiring the enemy to restart construction at level 1, and being a far more effective way to nullify your enemies gain. Of course, an instant destruction would be overpowered and too effective to be countered. I suggest that an action be added that would slowly take your building down to 0 health. Such a system could:

      1. take a period of approximately 1-4 hours ( varies depending on level of building )
      2. be canceled in case of accidental activation

      I feel such a system would improve overall gameplay, forcing players to look deeper into placement of industry and infrastructure, but would also force attacking forces to chose tactics to capture cities faster before enemy forces can destroy important building, furthering the use of tactics in gameplay. Another potential balance could be a requirement for at least 1 friendly unit to remain present in the city for the affect to take place, so destruction of industry isn't spammed in a losing scenario.

      Sorry if anyone else gave the suggestion, but I wanted to see this through, and 153 pages of feedback is a lot to go throu
      "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless." -Adolf Hitler.

      “Always winter, but never Christmas”
      –Mr. Tumnus, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
    • Please comment any ideas or objections. I'll look at them all and respond to any confusion. Thx.
      "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless." -Adolf Hitler.

      “Always winter, but never Christmas”
      –Mr. Tumnus, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
    • I totally agree with #1 (attrition).

      On #2: Scorched Earth is an interesting tactic, but it would take time and manpower to implement (and more with larger cities) by the losing side. There could also be a chance that the scorching troops could be killed by their enemy before the performance of their duty.
    • The Scorched Earth has been repeatedly proposed and even more repeatedly rejected, for a completely obvious reason: it will make the gameplay drag forever, and it has tons of possibilities for abuse. Since all the recent changes are aimed in the opposite direction, that is one change I will personally be extremely unhappy to see.

      Attrition is interesting but it has a number of problems (one of which is that you cannot easily define "encirclement", especially in coastal provinces). Of course, it has also an "opposite" side (entrenchment) - any unit staying immobile in a province should gain strength, because it will dig in, prepare lines of fire, set minefields, etc.
    • gusv wrote:



      There could also be a chance that the scorching troops could be killed by their enemy before the performance of their duty.
      In my opinion, this would be better, as it would require the enemy to use tactics to penetrate your line and capture your cities before you destroy them, and it would be up to the defender to decide if he has time to do so. Also, a whole army wouldn't be required to destroy buildings, but perhaps the more troops you have in said province, the less time it would take, up to a limit, so a massive army couldn't do it instantly, for the buildings to be destroyed.
      "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless." -Adolf Hitler.

      “Always winter, but never Christmas”
      –Mr. Tumnus, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
    • atreas1 wrote:

      Attrition is interesting but it has a number of problems (one of which is that you cannot easily define "encirclement", especially in coastal provinces).
      In my opinion, attrition would be like a status affect, if a province were to be cut off from any allied provinces ( being connected via a right of way country would count as connected) any troops within the province would slowly lose condition points until either the province is reconnected, or the troops break out into allied territory. This of course wouldn't affect planes on bombing missions, only if they are landed in an isolated province. However, to your entrenchment point, I believe said attrition effect should be able to be nullified by fortifications ( further reducing the effect the higher the level ). Another, more ambitious idea could be the addition of cargo planes that could drop supplies to encircled allied troops, in the same manner that you would bomb enemy troops, that would halt the effect for a set time ( depending on the level of the cargo plane).
      To further identify the definition of encirclement, the allied troops would have to get back into unencircled territory to disable the effect. This would not apply to simply moving into enemy territory so that your "not in Encircled territory", and would also not include entering enemy territory to attack or counterattack. Also, the Encircled part of your land would be defined as disconnected from the majority of your land, not just the Capitol.

      As for the scorched Earth statement, I feel there are ways that would keep it from being abused the way you suggest, but I understand and respect your opinion.

      I understand these ideas are too ambitious to be directly implemented, or probably even considered, but I'm just laying an outline for an idea I think would help gameplay and add more strategy to the game.
      "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless." -Adolf Hitler.

      “Always winter, but never Christmas”
      –Mr. Tumnus, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
    • It is always nice to have a presentation of ideas. I simply pointed out that the scorched earth idea is a repeated theme. There has already been a lengthy discussion on that subject, and it is pointless to repeat the obvious arguments for and against it - they can be briefly summarized as "realism" vs "less tedious and controversial gameplay".

      CoW is not a simulation, and doesn't pretend to try being one. Otherwise you wouldn't be able (for example) to produce latest tech units in newly captured provinces, as obviously this is not realistic (the raw materials needed are not magically transferred there, so you should need time even when capturing provinces with the necessary buildings). Situation becomes even worse due to the fact that it suffices to get a functioning IC LVl1 to produce anything - if ICs are destroyed, the damage is so tremendous that the game will drag for days. All these simplifications exist to speed up gameplay: just imagine how tedious it would be to play when whatever country you capture would need to be rebuilt from scratch. Even worse, imagine that any opponent you attack will decide (upon seeing he is losing) to abandon his cities unharmed to another opponent while destroying the cities you are going to get, just to punish you for attacking. I (and I am not alone here) cannot see what are the gameplay advantages, that is why I object.

      It is a pity that the game lacks a strategy layer that it would make attrition really viable - the notion of limited supplies. If you think of it, planes can patrol forever, artillery can fire for hours on end, ships can travel non-stop, submarines have unlimited rounds of torpedoes. Attrition is an attempt to put some notion of supplies, but you still didn't explain when a coastal province is "encircled" (otherwise one could claim there is always a supply line to any coastal province, making the idea much less viable). Yet, you still consider that somehow the planes would not lose condition (which is strange, after all they should be grounded when fuel supplies end).
    • atreas1 wrote:

      It is a pity that the game lacks a strategy layer that it would make attrition really viable - the notion of limited supplies. If you think of it, planes can patrol forever, artillery can fire for hours on end, ships can travel non-stop, submarines have unlimited rounds of torpedoes. Attrition is an attempt to put some notion of supplies, but you still didn't explain when a coastal province is "encircled" (otherwise one could claim there is always a supply line to any coastal province, making the idea much less viable). Yet, you still consider that somehow the planes would not lose condition (which is strange, after all they should be grounded when fuel supplies end).
      I understand, I favor said systems just because i personally enjoy the thought the resulting gameplay, and think others might too. In my opinion, encircled costal provinces would be cut off from neighboring allied provinces, both by land and sea. Just to help show you my train of thought, think how COW has a naval system where ships can't aimlessly run around in circles, there are set lines that ships can travel on, though they aren't visible. This makes it easier for an enemy with sufficient naval power to blockade countries, though i can see how that might be difficult still. As for artillery, I always assume that if your not surrounded the supplies continuously flow to them, though this process is unseen, hence the upkeep values. To your point, I feel that if you are short on supplies to fill the upkeep of certain units, such as artillery, they should be unable to fire until upkeep is met again. Also, a system of resupplying naval units at naval bases would be cool. However, I understand you point that COW isn't entirely realistic. Thanks for sharing.
      "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless." -Adolf Hitler.

      “Always winter, but never Christmas”
      –Mr. Tumnus, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
    • I’d like to see the scorched earth idea as a fire control but only affects enemy provinces

      For example if you don’t have enough troops to win the war but manage to breakthrough the frontline, completely decimating their IC and infrastructure would significantly weaken their position and might give you an edge.

      I suppose you could make it a certain unit like heavy tank or something to try and balance it but it would make for more interesting tactics
    • Vlanchavic wrote:

      I suppose you could make it a certain unit like heavy tank or something to try and balance it but it would make for more interesting tactics
      I agree, though perhaps something like an engineer could be added that would be required to do it, though it would have to do more than just that, it's an idea.
      "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless." -Adolf Hitler.

      “Always winter, but never Christmas”
      –Mr. Tumnus, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe