New Mod: Open discussion

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

Hi all
I have some ideas for a MOD, but I would like to submit them to the input/discussion of modders and players.

I would like to discuss the ideas separatelly, so my first idea is about modding the map

I am thinking about making most small cities in the map supply=0. With that I want to get to effects:

1) To make easier surrounding units and cutting them off, because right now there are so many supply sources that it is very difficult to isolated units from them.

2) To make strategic bombardement more atractive, with less supply sources you could use strategic bombardement to greater effect.

In line with this idea, I would also like to consider a readjustment of MPP distribution, concentrating them in richer regions.

Any suggestions?

[sPzAbt653]

I have put some thought to this in the past and have come to no concrete conclusion other than it is something I would like to put more thought to at a later date. My past thoughts got derailed by the scale, movement allowances, and supply of the attackers. Main issue I think is that the attacker needs to have HQ's right up front, otherwise the surrounding units drop in effectiveness too much.

For a visual, here is a screen shot from another game but similar scale. If we were creating these pockets in SC3, where would our HQ's be located so that they were safe and still provide supply to our spearheads? Plus, the towns and cities can not be bypassed as our HQ's need them for their supply.

I'd love to see if you can come up with a workable solution, because most of us would like to create pockets on the east front.

[TheBattlefield]

I've also been thinking a lot about this subject. I think here the engine's degree of abstraction reaches its limits. In this game scale, the headquarters would have to correspond approximately to an Army Group HQ. Here, however, the supply calculation already ends. A resource associated with an HQ and then the supply is subtracted with the distance to the HQ. For complex operations in the depth of a hostile territory, however, such a calculation is not enough. It overlooks the fact that at least the large combat units (armies/corps) have functional own supply staff. Under the assumption of a non-interrupted hex connection to an Army Group Headquarter, these core units should be able to extend the subtraction of the supply values (i.e. the distance between HQ and still supplied combat units) in a defined calculation function. In reverse, the HQ's of course should be given a limited function for the air supply of pockets.

I hope the language barrier was not insurmountable this time...[8D]

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

My general idea on the subject is that the problem lies in the units in the pocket,as they usually have some kind of supply source available, so they kepp some fighting capabilities and even the option to get replacements up to a point. So I think the key is to cut off those supply sources by making most small towns supply=0. I am not sure that can be done, I am still exploring the editor, but if done, units in the pocket will easily be with no supply at all, unable to get replacements and with very little combat capacity.
Regarding the supply of attacking units, some dificulties in supply are historical, as can be seen in Stahel's book on Barbarossa. However with enemy units on no supply you can probably move your HQs close to the front line without fearing enemy direct attacks.
Coupled with the elimination of supply sources, if possible, another action could be editing the effect of no supply on combat units, making it as drastic as required for pocketing to be an effective strategy.

[sPzAbt653]

I think here the engine's degree of abstraction reaches its limits.

Well, when I first started playing SC3 I had a strong dislike for the HQ units [they are not combat units and therefore should not be represented on the map]. For context, the screen shot I posted above from another game also uses HQ units, although with similar but not the same effects as SC3. In that example I decided to eliminate the HQ's from the OOB and instead modify the other parameters of the scenario to make up for their loss. Therefore, when I saw these HQ's in SC3 I had the initial reaction. However, after playing now for some time I see how the HQ's are integral in SC3, whether I agree with them or not, we have to utilize them. Although ...

[TheBattlefield]

I do not think that such a setting can be made via the editor. Maybe via recource/supply script. I can not really imagine that a reduction in the (only Russian?) supply values of small towns provides a realistic approach. The image of sPzAbt653 shows pockets with several hundred square kilometers (hex) of Russian homeland. And then the defenders should not have a time-limited possibility for at least a basic supply? I guess so. I still think that we are not dealing here with an unrealistic supply of the defenders, but rather with an abstraction-related lack of supply for the attackers.

[sPzAbt653]

So I think the key is to cut off those supply sources

Although it works both ways and the players will now find themselves faced with a fairly different game if this happens, I think. I am not disagreeing with your thoughts, I would like to see them worked up and tested to see the results. I am also still learning the editor and do not know if you can make some towns = 0 supply, but I have recently seen that we can make some Resources [towns] = 0 thru the Supply Script. Making them 0 with a Type 2 event will repeat each turn keeping the resource at 0 . However, if an HQ is in the pocket, there is still some supply provided.
I have found HQ's on the offense to be quite vulnerable and have edited them to have Defensive capabilities that can be upgraded with the Infantry Research. Not to make them super HQ's, just so that they can survive an attack before they are sent to safety [HQ's are quite expensive].
Other points to consider are Movement Allowances and Strikes. Again referring to the above screenshot, MA were raised to 13 by necessity, in order to allow adequate penetrations thru ZOC's. And Strikes are limited only by the units' MA [Action Points]. These two factors are absolutely necessary in order to reproduce the Historical East Front encirclement's. SC3 will never have them with two strike limits and MA's of 5.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

I do not think that such a setting can be made via the editor. Maybe via recource/supply script. I can not really imagine that a reduction in the (only Russian?) supply values of small towns provides a realistic approach. The image of sPzAbt653 shows pockets with several hundred square kilometers (hex) of Russian homeland. And then the defenders should not have a time-limited possibility for at least a basic supply? I guess so. I still think that we are not dealing here with an unrealistic supply of the defenders, but rather with an abstraction-related lack of supply for the attackers.

Well, the game is not realistic at all in supply issues, you can supply several armies from any supply source, no matter how small the town is, and even send replacements.
So, IMO it is not a question of realistic approach, but of realistic results. If we can make pocketing enemy units an atractive strategy then it should be it. I am not thinking just the Eastern front, but all the map, there are too many very small towns providing supply in North Africa, for instance.
Supply=0 does not mean units don get any supply, it means in game terms they are cut off and suffer a severe penalty that makes them vulnerable, and the strategy of pocketing enemy units attractive. That is the question for me.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I think here the engine's degree of abstraction reaches its limits.

Well, when I first started playing SC3 I had a strong dislike for the HQ units [they are not combat units and therefore should not be represented on the map]. For context, the screen shot I posted above from another game also uses HQ units, although with similar but not the same effects as SC3. In that example I decided to eliminate the HQ's from the OOB and instead modify the other parameters of the scenario to make up for their loss. Therefore, when I saw these HQ's in SC3 I had the initial reaction. However, after playing now for some time I see how the HQ's are integral in SC3, whether I agree with them or not, we have to utilize them. Although ...

Oh, maybe a language barrier again! [:D]

I love the HQ and how they are represented. We need this units as supply providers and as connection between the combat units! What I meant was: They are limited by the abstraction of the main (combat) units. These units (should) have integrated and strictly HQ related supply capacities! Like a little sub-HQ. Not independently, but in staggered and not interrupted (hex) connection with a "real" HQ. An extension of the supply line of HQ's...

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Supply=0 does not mean units don get any supply, it means in game terms they are cut off and suffer a severe penalty that makes them vulnerable, and the strategy of pocketing enemy units attractive. That is the question for me.

You may correct me if I am wrong, but this is how the game already works: An encircled unit loses its supply and can no longer attack properly. An encircled city loses its supply points with each additional turn. The problem is rather that the encircling units loses too fast their supply and therefore deep advances into the enemy's hinterland are hardly realizable at present.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

The problem is encircling units too many times still have some supply nearby because there are too many small towns that provide supply=5, so they are encircled, isolated, but still get replacements and a decent fighting capacity.

Probably even with Supply=0 they still retain too much fighting capacity, I have to check that, but ideally they should be easy prey and quickly eliminated.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

Ok, I have just checked it. In the first turn of the 1939 campaign in hotseat I play the germans and I advance to isolate 2 Polish cavalry brigades, one south of Danzig and the other one north of Poznan, this last one receives Supply=1 from Poznan, while the other isolated cavalry is Supply=0, well they have very similar levels of morale and readiness, 40/40 to 42/43. The only real penalty for supply=0 is action points, just 1 left while with supply=1 still 4 action points left to the cavalry unit.
Next turn statistics are 34/27 and 37/35, having moved the cavalry in the south closer to Poznan it has now Supply=2. The 2 German inf corps facing each unit have the same result projection.


So, it is confirmed, the problem with isolated units is not only supply, they also get a very light penalty in comparison to supplied units, just movement penalty, not combat penalty.In fact, Polish understrength units present lower statistics than the isolated cavalry, making strength a bigger factor than lack of supply!

[sPzAbt653]

Well, the game is not realistic at all in supply issues, you can supply several armies from any supply source

Oh my gosh, you are correct. How did I end up playing another game with unlimited supply, lol ?!?! Why-o-why is it so difficult to have a V4V-like Supply System ?

So, IMO it is not a question of realistic approach, but of realistic results.

Makes sense ! We need something between what we have now and what we had in Third Reich [remember in that, all unsupplied units were eliminated at the end of the owners turn, ouch !].

the problem with isolated units is ... just movement penalty, not combat penalty

Well, not really, because a lower supply level results in lower morale and readiness, which affects combat value to a pretty good extent.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

the problem with isolated units is ... just movement penalty, not combat penalty

Well, not really, because a lower supply level results in lower morale and readiness, which affects combat value to a pretty good extent.

But the difference between a unit with Supply=1 and another with Supply=0 bis just 2% in readiness and another 2% in morale, it is so low that it doesn´t matter in combat. In fact, as I said before, low strength is a more important factor than low supply in the game.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


We need something between what we have now and what we had in Third Reich [remember in that, all unsupplied units were eliminated at the end of the owners turn, ouch !].

Ha. An old wish of beta testing times. (Post #: 187)
[;)]
tm.asp?m=4105218&mpage=7&key=#

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

I have abandoned the idea of modding the map in order to create pockets more easily, since I have concluded that it is not worth, units in pockets just have almost the same levels of supply and readiness than those with Supply=1.

Other idea I have is to mod combat values to better represent historical army/country doctrines. Here I am following van Creveld, and I think it is in accordance with the main game design.
When I first started to SC3 I was surprised and diasappointed to see Corps and Armies mixed together in a OOB, but now I think I understand the idea behind. In armies you have not exactly whole armies, but picked combat and support units, while second line units would be in Corps. This is in agreement with van Creveld theories, according to him, German and Soviet doctrine emphasized reinforcing some key units used for punching enemy lines, while the rest where left depleted, just holding the line. The way to do this in SC3 is with 2 types of units, so I want to expand on that idea, while at the same time enhancing the different approach by the Western Allies, that according to van Creveld were more inclined to reinforce all units along the battleline in a more "linear" approach.
So, my ideas in game terms are:
1)Increase hard defense of German Inf Corps, and increase the hard attack of German Armies (increasing also action points from 3 to 4). Making clear they have 2 different roles in campaign.
2) Delete Soviet Corps and replace it with Soviet armies, with an increased Hard defense value
3) Increase the Hard attack value of Soviet Shock armies.

4)Increase both defense and attack values of Allied Corps, convert Allied armies into Mech units and delete Tank units.
The idea behind those changes is making the allies less capable of punching enemy lines but still able to steamroll over Germans when superiority is achieved.

I have other ideas, but for the moment I think it is a good initial point of discussion. I am afraid the mod after all those changes will not be playable against the AI.