A replacement suggestion

Moderator: Hubert Cater

Post Reply
Numdydar
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

A replacement suggestion

Post by Numdydar »

I have been thinking how unrealistic it is for troops in remote areas (even with supply lines to the home country) to have Armies/Corps to recover almost all their health in a single turn. It just does not fit with how things were done.

My idea is that you can only get a max of 2 replacements outside of your home territory. Assuming you have a decent supply level. If you do not have a supply lv of 5 or more, then you can only get 1 point replaced.

So any unit that got really beat up would either take a long time to rebuild in the field or have to be sent home for refitting.

Air units would be the exception since they can just be flown in [:)]

The game already requires naval units to be at a home port to get replacements. So why not do the same with land based ones?

User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 6884
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: A replacement suggestion

Post by BillRunacre »

I think the issue here is how to define the remote area, and to make sure that such a rule doesn't introduce any unintended consequences. Because while we can all think of examples where such a rule should apply, in game there could be similar circumstances (e.g. D-Day, Husky and Torch) where it wouldn't feel right, and keeping the rules as simple as possible is important too.

In terms of naval units, the rule is that they only return to full strength when in a port of strength 6 or higher, so they can reinforce up to strength 8 elsewhere.

PS I have actually been pondering a slightly less restrictive rule than this, but I'm not 100% sure it's needed given that lots of supply restriction rules (that affect reinforcements, morale and readiness) already exist. It's in my thoughts though.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
James Taylor
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact:

RE: A replacement suggestion

Post by James Taylor »

I'm always satisfying myself using realistic rationalizations for some of the things that feel a bit abstracted.

IRL SM's rationalization: Combat units rarely attack or defend across a front with more than a couple of battalions from one formation.

Think of one regiment from a division using 2 battalions(3 div. to a Corps, 4 to 8 to an Army)for an attack or defense. Some troops are always held back and it takes some time to get those reserve forces committed.

The SC reinforcement process is nothing more than a simulation of the tactic of keeping local reserves and slowly feeding them into the battle as the morale and readiness decays.

There is the also the representation of wounded and weapons being able to re-enter the conflict after a short recovery/repair.

Don't forget that SC unit strength is a symbol of "fighting strength" not necessarily the amount of manpower.
SeaMonkey
Numdydar
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: A replacement suggestion

Post by Numdydar »

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I think the issue here is how to define the remote area, and to make sure that such a rule doesn't introduce any unintended consequences. Because while we can all think of examples where such a rule should apply, in game there could be similar circumstances (e.g. D-Day, Husky and Torch) where it wouldn't feel right, and keeping the rules as simple as possible is important too.

In terms of naval units, the rule is that they only return to full strength when in a port of strength 6 or higher, so they can reinforce up to strength 8 elsewhere.

PS I have actually been pondering a slightly less restrictive rule than this, but I'm not 100% sure it's needed given that lots of supply restriction rules (that affect reinforcements, morale and readiness) already exist. It's in my thoughts though.

That is the rub in these games. How to define situations that require few if any exceptions [:)] Especially since every exception has to coded and tested separate from the overriding 'global' code.

Maybe, like Naval units, they have to just be in a city hex that has lv5+ supply to get full health back. That could simulate the R&R needed to bring a unit to full strength.

Since you have the code for naval units, it should be very simple to use that code for other units too right lol?
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 6884
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: A replacement suggestion

Post by BillRunacre »

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

That is the rub in these games. How to define situations that require few if any exceptions [:)] Especially since every exception has to coded and tested separate from the overriding 'global' code.

Maybe, like Naval units, they have to just be in a city hex that has lv5+ supply to get full health back. That could simulate the R&R needed to bring a unit to full strength.

Agreed, but the current rule is actually stricter than that, as they will need to have a supply level of 6 or more to reinforce to strength 10. If supply is less then the maximum amount they can reinforce to will be too.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
Numdydar
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: A replacement suggestion

Post by Numdydar »

Well maybe I'm pretty good with keeping my units supplied [:)] As I seldom have an issue with getting them back to full health. So while your rule may be more restrictive, it does not seem to be having the impact it should.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII: World at War”