Guerrilla/spec op units

[Sieppo]

Just an idea: because logistics at least still is a very integral part of the game, would be pretty cool to get rare, expensive and special units that would be hard to detect and also survive without supplies for some time. To use for example to infiltrate and disrupt enemy supply lines (dunno how this could be implemented against the computer). Could be a stratagem also to be attached to small infantry units.

[lloydster4]

The time and size scale make it a bit difficult to simulate spec ops. Each turn is 2 months, so operating a unit behind enemy lines for 3-4 turns is a bit crazy. Could perhaps be abstracted through strat cards?

Either way, it's probably better to post this in the Suggestions forum.

[zgrssd]

FYI, we do have a sugestions and feeback forum

"Hard to detect" and "easy to supply" basically involves not flipping and ignoring the Borders. Wich is a major rework of how some stuff works.

On the unit feat front:
- I am 90% sure one of the Unit Decisions has you assign a Spec-Ops Soldier. I think he had a chance to die every attack, due to his dangerous work?
- Band of Brothers/Heart-80 unlocks the "Camo Team" Unit feat. Has a chance to "hide" the unit when attacked.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

"Hard to detect" and "easy to supply" basically involves not flipping and ignoring the Borders. Wich is a major rework of how some stuff works.

He's correct about this part. I think the units and zone borders are very tightly coupled together.

As was also mentioned, cards and such exist, but they are simple events and unit feats.

As to the time scale, actually time scale is ok. Non-conventional and uncoventional warfare is methodical (two of many missions)--entertainment only focuses on the 3-30 minutes of violence that sits in the middle of the conop. I could do yet another suggestion about all this, but I think I've used up all my quarters. I'll let the dev team carry on with their own hopes and dreams.

[zgrssd]

On the unit feat front:
The Sniper Unit Feat can take away enemies XP (by shooting the Officers on the ground).
I would say a commando feat that attacks the enemies supplies would be possible.

Note that for the Sniper I do not know how much XP is lost and if the loss is permanent or just a "no more XP bonus for this combat" style debuff on the affected units.

[lloydster4]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
As to the time scale, actually time scale is ok. Non-conventional and uncoventional warfare is methodical

It's a lot easier to be methodical when you're not starving to death. That means you have to either a) establish an alt-logistics mechanic or b) create a unit-type that doesn't require supplies. The former has potential, particularly when combined with aircraft/boats, but the latter creates more problems than it's worth.

[demiare]

And don't forget that AI hardly bothered by logistics, so such units will be either useless or broken OP, but in any case they will be much stronger annoyance for player.

I'm against anything that breaking rules MORE while currently player&AI still aren't playing the same game.

Plus in real life guerrilla warfare relied mostly on locals & import of weapons. It's mostly impossible in Shadow Empire as human settlements are very scarce and nobody will sell/gift you weapons&ammo. Paratroopers will both not fill well sci-fi setting (parachute on moon? [:D]) plus IRL are still rely on "normal" army support & logistic as have very limited ammunition.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
As to the time scale, actually time scale is ok. Non-conventional and uncoventional warfare is methodical

It's a lot easier to be methodical when you're not starving to death. That means you have to either a) establish an alt-logistics mechanic or b) create a unit-type that doesn't require supplies. The former has potential, particularly when combined with aircraft/boats, but the latter creates more problems than it's worth.

Well, I will not be a stick in the mud about it. Logistics is critically important for real special operations forces.

Let's just agree that infiltration and exfiltration work the same as spies.

I have about 20 ready-made posts to talk about SOF vs spies too, if someone decides to implement this idea.

In a previous life (back on 23 May), I wrote the following post before launch, hinting at SOF, clandestine (i.e. spies), and covert operations.

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

If it was much earlier in development, I would have recommended some added smaller units, perhaps lethal and less so, that don't don't require lines of communication (supply lines) and/or don't actually change boundaries. Perhaps like Tuaregs. The minor factions already exist much like this now.

It's an interesting problem because units also leave a "trail of control-influence" when they move through an adversary’s territory. An enemy unit that moves across the territory impacts the touched hexes during the next turn, even though they are no longer located in those hexes. An enemy unit may have crossed a road two turns ago, but if not re-occupied the effect remains.

This might be a remnant of "world war 2" battlefield modelling. As I wrote elsewhere, these are really battlefields that focus on anti-access and area denial. Very limited “front lines”. Engagements are decisive.

However, there are many approaches and the current rules, in whole, work just as well IMO.

(the search on this forum is really poor)

[zgrssd]

By pure chance, I just got the command Unit Feat in a game:
- does extra damage each combat round
- has a 10% chance to die each combat round

Like a less powerfull - but more reliable - version of the suicide bomber.

[lloydster4]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
If it was much earlier in development, I would have recommended some added smaller units, perhaps lethal and less so, that don't don't require lines of communication (supply lines) and/or don't actually change boundaries. Perhaps like Tuaregs. The minor factions already exist much like this now.

It's an interesting problem because units also leave a "trail of control-influence" when they move through an adversary’s territory. An enemy unit that moves across the territory impacts the touched hexes during the next turn, even though they are no longer located in those hexes. An enemy unit may have crossed a road two turns ago, but if not re-occupied the effect remains.

I like where your heads at here. There are plenty of examples of 4X-ish games that use on-map agents. The Total War series comes to mind. Having these unconventional assets (assassins, saboteurs, spies, diplomats, etc) represented on the map adds to the player experience, but that's a very complicated additional layer. Idk if it could exist outside of a paid DLC. It's a matter of taste, but I'd prefer only front-line units be represented on the board.

I also find the binary control-influence system to be a small problem. I don't think that troops should be the only assets that exert a Zone of Control. It's easy to imagine abstracted security forces employed by cities, mines, and even roads/railways. You could also have buildable "fort-type" assets that increased hex defense and projected minor control.

[JWW]

Guerrillas. Not opposed but might that give the human player too big an advantage against the AI? And would the AI be given the same tactic? Maybe a stratagem card. Similar to rebels. I played the rebel stratagem several times near the end of my last game (see AAR) and could see rebel pockets pop up. I'm not sure how much that helped, but I think it probably helped some.

[vlad1492]

Luck hands me some AI Walkers from time to time.
They don't seem to care about logistics and can wander (slowly) all over the map.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: vlad1492

Luck hands me some AI Walkers from time to time.
They don't seem to care about logistics and can wander (slowly) all over the map.

I just defeated a bunch of a AI walkers. Admitedly, it was on Starting Techlevel 4. But still, it is doable.

[vlad1492]

Sure, they aren't impenetrable. My point is they can raid far from your logistics network since they don't need logi.

[Malevolence]

Walkers are good at running forward and establishing boundaries/borders that major regimes will not cross without declaring war. Their ability to cross high mountains like infantry is critical to the mission.

I routinely use them for containment.

If walkers didn't change borders, for me, the game would play very differently and be much more difficult.

That's why guerrillas, sof, etc. should not have the ability to change borders. It's OP.

[vlad1492]

I sure like the idea of operatives that can go behind enemy lines.
But how to disrupt their logistics and supply without changing borders?

Maybe a flag 'Commando', allowing units to not establish borders or declare allegience.
Can damage assets, reduce or destroy roads, inspire free folk to stay home or rise up etc.
Give them a 'hide' attribute that scales with tech, and if they get caught a chance to cause a diplomatic incident. Chance to resist interrogation in other words.

Wishful thinking at the moment.