Thanks for your thoughts and feedback.
ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
1/ Add a new attack option called Probe. This is the best way to test enemy resistance without going into a full blown type of attack. I've tried to emulate this by using weak units with with low levels of Quality in an effort to keep the battle intensity at the lowest possible level. After all, I'm only testing the enemy and gathering some more intel prior to going ahead with an Attack or Assault (or not). However, it has not worked well. Usually results in the prober being vaporized with a minuscule increase in intel.
I need to think about this one. It seems to me the game engine as-is should be able replicate a "probe" right now. If it doesn't, then maybe there is a fix to the existing engine while maintaining the current set of attack options. More to follow...
ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
2/ Allow the player to set the battle intensity DOWNWARDS (only)if desired. This could accomplish the same as #1 above without needing a new command. It would allow a more survivable unit to conduct a low intensity attack without going into the full blown attack or assault, and would probably have other uses as well (such as diversionary attacks).
Battle intensity is set automatically by the program based on the various combinations of Player and Enemy actions--the Player does not directly set battle intensity. If I understand your suggestion, the Player
would have the ability to adjust the battle intensity setting of his units downward from the default calculation. Correct?
ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
3/ Make the stacking point values more reflective of actual unit size as opposed to TOE size. If the hex contains two companies both at half strength in terms of personnel/equipment losses (i.e. strength not readiness) then the stacking value should be reflective of those reduced actual numbers of people and equipment. Use percentages in the same fashion as used in all the other multipliers. In my example instead of the SP total being 4 (2x2) it would be 2 (2x.50 plus 2x.50). If a hex will only hold so much then the numbers used should be dynamic.
Agree. I would like to see this capability as well.
ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
4/ Allow players the ability to conduct multiple set piece attacks against a specific hex to reflect diversions and/or second or third echelon attacks soviet style. These attacks could be simultaneous or occur at different points in time during a turn using an expanded WAIT function that would allow players to set more than a single 1 SP delay for units. After all we are trying to get to the "green fields beyond" the enemy MLR. This would also mean that a mix of some attack types would need to be allowed for units in different hexes conducting operations against the same hex. It could also mean that set piece attacks might necessitate the plotting of of attack/assaults beyond that of an immediately adjacent hex time and MPs permitting.
I would like to see the
effect of a Soviet-style echeloned attack added to the game engine. How to get there will require a bit of thought to keep it simple/easy to comprehend what to do and understand what is happening.
ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
5/ Or you could consider using other types of markers ala MAIN EFFORT markers with built in mission protocols such as a SECONDARY EFFORT marker and a DIVERSIONARY EFFORT marker etc. in order to achieve the same things as in #4 above.
I like this idea. A solution to 1/ might be found here. Got to think about the best method to implement.
ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
Just some ideas.....hope most of us like them.
Good and interesting ideas. Thanks.
ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
What do others think??
And I ask as well, what do others think??
