Changing Unit Values

Vamaw · Oct 2nd 2019, 7:42pm

I think the game would be more interesting and diverse if for example 1 Unit of infantry became 1000 separate troops. It would add more realism and tactics to the game. 1 Unit of light tanks can become 500 separate light tanks, you would be free to split these tanks tanks into for example two [250 light tank each] divisions and assign them to different locations. It would be possible to send even one separate tank to an assigned location and the other 499 to another. Each separate light tank at full health would have these stats: 0.04 health, deal 0.005 damage to infantry, would have a 40 km/h speed and equal 0.005 strength. It would also consume 0.2 units of fuel and 0.05 units of food. (I basically took the original light tank unit and split it's stats by 500) This is so they can only be dangerous in numbers. This can make calculating battles much easier. If the game can make a 3D map then this feature should definitely be implemented.

OneNutSquirrel · Oct 3rd 2019, 5:54pm

Why?

Eventually you will arrive at a point where you can't divide units any smaller.... ie. you can't cut one soldier in half and send the head, arms and torso in one direction and the hips and legs in the opposite directions if you want to retain any FUNCTIONALITY of that unit.

So why not accept, that on a map where an average province represents 200,000 square km, a single soldier would be useless... and a single tank would accomplish nothing.... in order to gain control over and pacify a population of 100-250,000 civilians, you need a minimum of 1,000 soldiers or a couple hundred tanks....

and they are represented by 1 Soldier Icon...

And if you could split off an individual soldier from an army of 1,000, would he now fight at 1/1000 the strength of the unit? Would he do 0.002 damage?

I don't see any practical value in such an option.

Vamaw · Oct 3rd 2019, 8:37pm

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

Why?

Eventually you will arrive at a point where you can't divide units any smaller.... ie. you can't cut one soldier in half and send the head, arms and torso in one direction and the hips and legs in the opposite directions if you want to retain any FUNCTIONALITY of that unit.

So why not accept, that on a map where an average province represents 200,000 square km, a single soldier would be useless... and a single tank would accomplish nothing.... in order to gain control over and pacify a population of 100-250,000 civilians, you need a minimum of 1,000 soldiers or a couple hundred tanks....

and they are represented by 1 Soldier Icon...

And if you could split off an individual soldier from an army of 1,000, would he now fight at 1/1000 the strength of the unit? Would he do 0.002 damage?

I don't see any practical value in such an option.

The whole point of the idea is just to replace the health bar of units with numbers. You do realize that one unit of infantry IS actually 1000 separate troops (you can see it in the newspaper casualties) just represented as one. The amount of troops in this "1" unit of infantry is represented by the health bar, which in turn decreases whenever you receive casualties. This idea is just to add more tactics and strategy. if for example you have 3 units of infantry and want to split them evenly. You would just end up having 2 units of infantry in one stack and 1 unit in another. While if they were actually 3000 troops, you could split them into 1500 troops in one stack, and 1500 in another.

OneNutSquirrel · Oct 3rd 2019, 8:47pm

Again... WHY?

What functionality would this serve which is currently missing? None.

All the "additional" information this addition would provide is ALREADY, currently available. A infantry unit represented by an infantry Icon which stands for 1,000 soldiers.... would represent only 630 soldiers it at 63% Moral...

There are serious issues with game that could be addressed... there are minor issues with this game that could be addressed after those ones... Then there are issues which are minuscule in importance and wasting time on them would be a waste of time...

Then there are issues like this.. which are already addressed. Spending time to provide information ALREADY AVAILABLE just to make it available in a different format is a complete waste of Dev time.

Vamaw · Oct 3rd 2019, 9:04pm

Well the first why of this idea is to keep the game interesting. It may just be my opinion but representing everything in 1 2's or 3's is just really not interesting. Besides, it makes me much more comfortable knowing that I have 10,000 troops instead of 10 units. The second why is realism. The third why is, like I said STRATEGY AND TACTICS. Let's imagine a scenario. You're France and Germany is attacking two of your provinces. You send two armies to defend, 1 heavy tank unit and one infantry unit, The heavy tanks are defending Province A while the infantry is defending Province B. With the enemy in sight you find out that there is some mech. infantry attacking Province B and some other mech. infantry attacking Province A. The mech. infantry would instantly wipe out the normal infantry while the other mech. infantry doesn't really pose a threat to the heavy tanks. What would you do, you can't really send over the whole unit of heavy tanks to defend your infantry since that would compromise Province A. Instead, with this idea, you can send over (we assume there are 500 heavy tanks) 150 heavy tanks to defend your infantry. While also defending Province A.

OneNutSquirrel · Oct 3rd 2019, 9:25pm

Armies DO NOT fight as individual units. In order to achieve MEASURABLE success you must have a MEASURABLE strength of force so it can achieve a goal.

In your scenario... one tank against an attacking Armoured division is useless... insignificant and would not be counted.... neither would one soldier or squad or even a company of several dozen when facing thousands in an oncoming army.

CoW is a game of moving ARMIES around... not individual soldiers or tanks or aircraft.

Your suggestion adds nothing to this game it needs to make game play better. All it adds is unneeded complexity and wasted Dev time when they have much more pressing issues in need of their time.

Just think this through for one moment... How Far would you want this pealing off of individual troops from an Infantry Icon would you want this to go... does the pealed off unit get smaller in size the fewer units it represents? How much smaller is size is the Icon representing a single soldier compared to the Icon representing 1000 soldiers... If not size... then what colour to differentiate unit size?

As I said before... your suggestions adds NOTHING that SBDE doesn't currently address. You want to defend against multiple attacking units... you have to have multiple defending units in a stack that address all incoming threats.

Armies fight Armies... and individual troops, tanks, airplanes are insignificant when you're commanding 1,000 of troops on battlefields that cover 100's of square km's.

Your suggestion to micromanage troop formations adds a level of "Zoom-in" to the game on a scale that would make it unplayable... I had 500 units on board at end of my last game.... If I split each one of them into individual soldiers and airplanes and ended up with 50,000 individual icons representing troops... how would that improve my game play?

The confusion of having to give orders to 1,000 individual solders compared to to giving 1 order to an army of 1,000 infantrymen... you see where I"m going with this...

gusv · Oct 3rd 2019, 9:25pm

It seems that Mr. Vamaw is thinking of a more tactical game (perhaps a specific battle) than a strategic game like CoW. I'm sure that there are some game developers already providing those kind of games, but I can't recall their names off my head ...

Vamaw · Oct 3rd 2019, 9:42pm

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

Armies DO NOT fight as individual units. In order to achieve MEASURABLE success you must have a MEASURABLE strength of force so it can achieve a goal.

In your scenario... one tank against an attacking Armoured division is useless... insignificant and would not be counted.... neither would one soldier or squad or even a company of several dozen when facing thousands in an oncoming army.

CoW is a game of moving ARMIES around... not individual soldiers or tanks or aircraft.

Your suggestion adds nothing to this game it needs to make game play better. All it adds is unneeded complexity and wasted Dev time when they have much more pressing issues in need of their time.

Just think this through for one moment... How Far would you want this pealing off of individual troops from an Infantry Icon would you want this to go... does the pealed off unit get smaller in size the fewer units it represents? How much smaller is size is the Icon representing a single soldier compared to the Icon representing 1000 soldiers... If not size... then what colour to differentiate unit size?

As I said before... your suggestions adds NOTHING that SBDE doesn't currently address. You want to defend against multiple attacking units... you have to have multiple defending units in a stack that address all incoming threats.

Armies fight Armies... and individual troops, tanks, airplanes are insignificant when you're commanding 1,000 of troops on battlefields that cover 100's of square km's.

Your suggestion to micromanage troop formations adds a level of "Zoom-in" to the game on a scale that would make it unplayable... I had 500 units on board at end of my last game.... If I split each one of them into individual soldiers and airplanes and ended up with 50,000 individual icons representing troops... how would that improve my game play?

The confusion of having to give orders to 1,000 individual solders compared to to giving 1 order to an army of 1,000 infantrymen... you see where I"m going with this...

I see what you mean but really..it's a matter of opinion, you may like the game simple and fun, while others would like it complex and tactical, like me.

OneNutSquirrel · Oct 27th 2019, 3:53pm

If you "Split up" a Battleship... with 4,500 sailors aboard.

What would be the combat strength of individual rowboats? And since there are only 200 life rafts... would the 4,300 remaining sailors just swim across oceans to attack their targets?

If you see that as "game complexity" as opposed to "absurd"... I can't begin to explain to you how wrong you are... or how military force functions in the real world.

Vamaw · Oct 27th 2019, 4:16pm

And I remember telling you that:

Vamaw wrote:

it's a matter of opinion, you may like the game simple and fun, while others would like it complex and tactical.

I didn't say you split up the damn battleship, you split separate battleships in one group. For example, dividing a battleship unit consisting of four battleships into two units consisting of two battleships. Not split one battleship with one half of it going there and another here.

I don't really understand why you would necro a month old topic.

OneNutSquirrel · Oct 27th 2019, 4:35pm

Though I'd let you think on it for a month... and you still don't get it.

If you see how absurd it is with a battleship.... do you not see how insane it would be to split a division of 10-15,000 men into individual soldiers running around the world with individual orders?

Please tell me me you realize that 200 guys in rowboats, and 4,299 guys swimming in the open ocean and a cook being the only one left on the Battleship is a bad way to bring a Battleship "Unit" into combat. Please tell me you agree.

Please tell me you understand that 200 guys in rowboats, and 4,298 guys swimming in the open ocean and a cook and mechanic left on the Battleship is not much better....

Please tell me that....

The Only way a Battleship is effective is that if it fights AS A UNIT.

And this game being a "Birds Eye" view of military combat as opposed to a First Person Shooter where you are the ONE soldier running around the battlefield and your line of sight is rarely more than a few hundred metres in front of you AND your Soldier's combat influence is limited to that small area. While here you're "Units" area of combat influence is hundreds of square km's and giving individual orders to 15,000 soldiers every day would not be "tactical" but insane...

gusv · Oct 27th 2019, 5:55pm

As I said before, it seems that Mr. Vamaw is thinking of a more tactical game (perhaps a specific battle) than a strategic game like CoW. A web search showed me a sampling of a few, such as:

Sid Meier's Ace Patrol - The guy that developed Civilization, a strategic game where you start a civilization and develop it from about 4,000 B.C. (e.g. Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Aztecs, Greeks, Rome, etc.)
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.
Battle of Britain.
Combat Mission: Battle of Normandy.
Ultimate General: Gettysburg.

Restrisiko · Oct 27th 2019, 10:00pm

CR wrote:

@OneNutSquirrel, I agree with all your points, except for the passage about the Cook.

OneNutSquirrel · Oct 27th 2019, 10:14pm

Restrisiko wrote:

CR wrote:

@OneNutSquirrel, I agree with all your points, except for the passage about the Cook.

Correction then;

A battleship with full crew, each cook you put in a rowboat counts as a new Battleship spawned from the original... full stats and 100 % Strength.. and you can heal and spawn up to 200 new Battleships (one for each rowboat) as the original heals and replaces the cooks that leave with their Rowboat (aka. Bismark)

My deepest apologies... how could I have missed that obvious flaw in my reasoning.

KrestelGaming · Oct 27th 2019, 10:44pm

I don't really see a need for this in game

Restrisiko · Oct 27th 2019, 11:10pm

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

.. each cook you put in a rowboat counts as a new Battleship ..

Ryan04px2025 · Oct 28th 2019, 8:01am

He must be thinking of games that leads people in a specific battle. Eg. Fire team 1 move to this building! Lieutenant manage the 2 sergeants here. This would be a even more specific type of game.

Restrisiko · Oct 28th 2019, 8:05pm

Ryan04px2025 wrote:

He must be thinking of games that leads people in a specific battle.

Yeah, Vamavs proposals are not so bad in themselves --- but for other games .

........................................................................................................................................................................................
I'm fundamentally against any changes that would turn this wonderful long term strategic board game (further) in direction of an action-packed shooter or a simulation.

And let's praise the gods as long as they protect us strategy and mind game lovers from too much kitschy 3D graphics. :rolleyes:

Ryan04px2025 · Oct 29th 2019, 7:06am

True, that's why I invited him to my alliance

Changing Unit Values

Changing Unit Values

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

Vamaw wrote:

CR wrote:

Restrisiko wrote:

CR wrote:

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

Ryan04px2025 wrote:

Share

Similar Threads