Historical scenarios.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: seille

Mhh, i think the fixed unit organisations sounds like a nice idea.
It would allow players only to fill up these units up to their original strength.

And you could limit the player on creating new units.

BUT: What will happen when a initial unit is destroyed completely ?

Player must have a chance then to rebuild that unit in the original strength.
New units could appear at historical times.

For the real Grognards this may be great, but i like to be flexible.
But it´s worth to think about such a feature, Vic

At least a option in the editor that doesn´t allow to exceed the initial strength of a unit.
No strength is wrong, i mean the initial composition of the unit.

Actually, I've been working on doing somethinglike this in scenario I'm working on (Oper. Avalanche). However, I think it will work without having a feature to freeze the unit comp. I think it's possible to to manage this by using replacements, provided by Events that check total force, and not allowing build. In fact I think you could even still use the producction system, but monitor and reduce it if totl prod got too high.

It would not prohibit player from building uber-units, but it would constrain how he was able to (he'd have to reduce composition of other units). In any case, I'm working on a Bn level scenario where I'm trying some things like this.

I thought I would have it ready yestrrday or today, but ran into another problem, so it's taking a little while longer.

it is my first scenario, so I've kept it fairly small.

Rick

[tweber]

The really simple way to lock unit compositions is in their construction.  Instead of having rifle, AT gun, tank, and truck units, make units that are a blend of each.  It could be a rifle-AT_gun-light_tank unit or simply a '1941 German Infantry Battalion'.  A counter could now have a couple of infantry battalions and a couple of other units that are different blends. 

[Vic]

i agree with tom (tweber). that will let you go with the grain of the engine instead of against it.

[seille]

Nah Tom, i´m not sure i like this. How should i pick the guns out of these "mischmasch" subunittypes with divebombers ?
When i understood you right you want to create fully new sft´s like a "tank batallion"
But i could not longer pic single tanks out of these formations, or ? Since they are more a virtual thing then.
Let´s say i have a SFT "German infantry battalion" with (virtual) mix of infantry, MG, mortar, AT gun and infantry gun (+flak...)
how this will appear on the battlescreen? As one icon. Or better said one icon per battalion.
Planes hitting special subformations would become useless here. They would always hit the whole unit.
Imho this would screw the combat system of the actual unit set completely (and it´s balance)
Or did i misunderstood you here ? 

[jjdenver]

Seille if you're worried about having a mishmash in one SFT, just make them companies which are usually more of a single type of equipment.

[seille]

But there are still no tanks i can hit. Or no AT guns or Infantry guns.
All the weak points and the strength of the actual subunits would be lost then.
 
@jjdenver
Ok, then i have "5x German Infantry Battalion 1941" in that subunit.
Still a mix of different original SFT´s which are not longer attackable in the old way.
No longer individuals the combat engine is based on.
 
@Vic
 
Since this was your idea maybe you can tell me how the fight will be done here.
How the "divebomber is good against heavy equipment like trucks, tanks and guns" can work here ?
They would be not longer available as target, just the 10x German Infantry Battalion 1941.....
Mhh, i want to destroy tanks/guns and so on and i want to see this in the statistics [;)]

[tweber]

This is what I like the most about the game.  If you feel like the units should be mashed together, you can do that (e.g., the Katyusha and Flak 88 in the new World at War scenario).  If you don't, you do not have to do it either.  Everyone will have there own preferences. 
 
To your specific question, a tactical wing (e.g., a mash of fighers and divebombers) might be better against the mash called 'tank, mechanized, or gun battalion' than against the mashed up 'basic infantry battalion'.  The higher losses of the first could be due to better targeting and would be reflected in the statistics.

[jjdenver]

Seille,

If you go with companies then you have generally a specific unit type in the company.

For example a panzer company might have 10 panzers in it so it's not a mishmash, it's a panzer SFT. An infantry company has infantry so it's an infantry SFT. An artillery company has guns so it's an artillery SFT. An AA company has flak guns so it's an AA SFT. At the battalion level you have more of a mishmash of units - true - but if you go company and base your production and unit construction on that you'll have a lot of SFT's per formation but at least the SFT's will be represented as a piece of specific equipment as you desire.

Will this work?

JJ

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: tweber

This is what I like the most about the game.  If you feel like the units should be mashed together, you can do that (e.g., the Katyusha and Flak 88 in the new World at War scenario).  If you don't, you do not have to do it either.  Everyone will have there own preferences. 

To your specific question, a tactical wing (e.g., a mash of fighers and divebombers) might be better against the mash called 'tank, mechanized, or gun battalion' than against the mashed up 'basic infantry battalion'.  The higher losses of the first could be due to better targeting and would be reflected in the statistics.

Yes, its really quite an accomplishment - granted I'm pretty much a novice, but the more I tinker with the editor, them more I like this game.

Rick

[seille]

Ok. But where is then the difference to the actual system ?
It would be the same except you call the subformations then company(´s).
 
We´ll see what the scenario designers do and how they solve these problems.
At least problems in my eyes...
Maybe they´ll find a workaround or rewrite the whole unit set.
 
 

[tweber]

I'm not planning on re-writing the current unit set.  It is clean, balanced, and good for the scale that is often used.  So this is all theoretical until someone puts some thing out.  In any case, I do not think that the system is changed.  You could take just about any unit (let's say a truck) and add some capability (lets say a high defense ability against tanks) and the system will treat that unit like a different unit (same as a AT gun).  The real challenge with making units is making them in a way that no one unit is dominant.  If you add capability to a unit, you should generally also add cost or some other vulnerability.  Otherwise, smart players will buy that unit exclusively.

[seille]

@Tom
 
I 100% understood what you have in mind.
It would need a complete rework of the current ww2 unit set since introducing such companies/battalions/regiments/divisions or squadrons/groups [:D] with new production costs would cause a imbalance. Means you have to make the full unit set this way.
 
And then you would have to do all the work to balance that new unit set again. All the finetuning. I can still remember very good ...
The problem that i could never ever pick up single tanks would be still there [:D]