True. Maybe except I would not claim it beeing healing but rather adjusting/moderating RFC (Retreat From Combat) check in a way which gives more acceptable combat results and hopefully avoids or at least mitigates the feeling that something is wrong with Fortified@IgnoreLosses units. The simple way to do it is by adjusting down Terrain/Deployment factors used within RFC procedure to values somewhere between these used in versions 3.2 and 3.4ORIGINAL: Lobster
Pro: You have a way to heal the Fortified Ignore Losses problem? Con: There might be a PBEM security problem with it?
ORIGINAL: Lobster
If that is what you are saying then I think most people would be ok with not so much security if you can fix the ignore loss problem.
Well hopefully many/most players would think the same. Still some may see it differently. And releasing a patch changing combat logic without providing adequate PBEM safety will affect all players. Don't feel like I have the right at my whim to take decision which may result in disruption of other people games. On the other hand it may be that incoming version 3.5 will soon make it moot point anyway. So maybe it is indeed just hair-splitting on my part - I dunno.ORIGINAL: Ruppich
if i dont trust my pbem opponent then i dont play him...
Hi Fabio, glad to hear from you too. I like the idea of making T/D factors more variable, more dependable on unit's internal state. And agree that without sufficient supply even best terrain/deployment should not help much. Another idea with modulating T/D factor by unit quality also has some appeal to me. However at the end what matters is - as Seaclubber pointed out above - players feelings about combat results beeing right or wrong (on average). Making changes according to such ideas - without first testing them through - can easily detune combat results to the level they will look worser/stranger despite sound basic concept behind them. Anyway when I will have some time later I will try to implement both versions - just out of curiosity to see how they would really work. For now I just finished simple version of the patch with Deployment factors moved down a notch and terrain factors taking much bigger cut. For this particular version numbers I choosed to test are:ORIGINAL: governato
A unit can be as fortified as it can be, but with no food or ammos it should find it very difficult to hold ground.
Fortified depl. - 65 (84, 50 - for comparision numbers used in 3.4-original and 3.2 )
Entrenched depl. - 50 (65, 33)
"Fortified Line"-terrain - 33 (84, -)
Defensive depl. - 20 (26, 20)
dense urban, badlands terrain - 20 (65, -)
mountains terrain - 20 (50, -)
No idea yet if these numbers are too low or maybe too high still so I'm just about to test it on the southern part of DNO frontline ([:D]) where large part of soviet line is using fortified terrain/deployment. Assuming it will work reasonably I will next put the file into Dropbox folder so if you will later have time to take a look and test it a bit I would be glad to get your comments.
EDIT: Hi, Herr Oberst! The file should be in the dropbox ready for testing tomorrow so if you will have some time to spend... [:)]