Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

The Strategic Command game system takes into account many factors, but the devs have chosen (up till now) not to introduce further limits on strategic resources, such as manpower or oil. So the only strategic constraints to production in the game are the MPP limits and the build limits per unit type for each Major.

For all the reasons cited above by stockwellpete, I think it would make a big difference to the WW1 game, especially in 1917-18, to start to introduce manpower constraints on new or rebuilt units. It would make the game not only more realistic but also more interesting to play. It would certainly make the arrival of fresh U.S. troops that much more significant a factor on the Western Front.

In theory, there are lots of different ways that manpower constraints could be introduced into the game once a manpower threshold had been reached. This could include:
- Increasing the MPP cost of reinforcements for existing units
- Reducing the maximum amount which units can be reinforced to levels below 10, even if fully supplied
- Increasing impact on unit morale of strength point losses and reducing the morale benefit of new replacement points added
- Increasing the MPP cost of rebuilding destroyed units
- Raising the supply threshold below which destroyed units can only be rebuilt at full cost (i.e. above 5 supply)
- Starting rebuilt units at a lower initial morale level
- Lengthening the production time for rebuilt or new units

An interesting way of triggering some of these measures would be to introduce for each Major a "whole campaign" build limit for infantry and cavalry units. This limit would track the total number of units built or rebuilt over the duration of the game, and not just the number on the board or in production at any given time. Once a Major had reached its campaign build limit, new conscription measures would have to introduced via a DE to increase that build limit, which would come with significant loss of National Morale, increased risk of demonstrations and strikes, along with several of the above constraints on building or rebuilding units. If the increased build limit was reached, there could be further rounds of conscription proposed in subsequent Decision Events (similar to the DE for expending MPPs to raise National Morale), triggering even collateral bigger effects.

I'd be interested to hear other players views on these ideas - especially people who have designed or played mods in any of the Strategic Command games where manpower constraints were a factor.

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

The Strategic Command game system takes into account many factors, but the devs have chosen (up till now) not to introduce further limits on strategic resources, such as manpower or oil. So the only strategic constraints to production in the game are the MPP limits and the build limits per unit type for each Major.

For all the reasons cited above by stockwellpete, I think it would make a big difference to the WW1 game, especially in 1917-18, to start to introduce manpower constraints on new or rebuilt units. It would make the game not only more realistic but also more interesting to play. It would certainly make the arrival of fresh U.S. troops that much more significant a factor on the Western Front.

In theory, there are lots of different ways that manpower constraints could be introduced into the game once a manpower threshold had been reached. This could include:
- Increasing the MPP cost of reinforcements for existing units
- Reducing the maximum amount which units can be reinforced to levels below 10, even if fully supplied
- Increasing impact on unit morale of strength point losses and reducing the morale benefit of new replacement points added
- Increasing the MPP cost of rebuilding destroyed units
- Raising the supply threshold below which destroyed units can only be rebuilt at full cost (i.e. above 5 supply)
- Starting rebuilt units at a lower initial morale level
- Lengthening the production time for rebuilt or new units

An interesting way of triggering some of these measures would be to introduce for each Major a "whole campaign" build limit for infantry and cavalry units. This limit would track the total number of units built or rebuilt over the duration of the game, and not just the number on the board or in production at any given time. Once a Major had reached its campaign build limit, new conscription measures would have to introduced via a DE to increase that build limit, which would come with significant loss of National Morale, increased risk of demonstrations and strikes, along with several of the above constraints on building or rebuilding units. If the increased build limit was reached, there could be further rounds of conscription proposed in subsequent Decision Events (similar to the DE for expending MPPs to raise National Morale), triggering even collateral bigger effects.

ORIGINAL: Patrat

PS. I am currently playing a game as the entante against the AI CP set to the very highest difficulty. I haven't seen the kind of unit congestion pictured above.

ORIGINAL: shri
There is a way to avoid this - by restricting RUSSIAN/AUSTRIAN/ITALIAN/OTTOMAN/Minor trenches & Industry to level 2 only.

ORIGINAL: Xsillione

Hmm, never seen this many units, not sure how you left them to build up, and most importantly, how you managed to even hold them. Played (and won) on expert against the entente, and never seen this row after row buildup, at worst they had three rows, and that was even with art and hq peppered into. Of course the attrition rate was also quite high, and even the simple reinforcements used up lot of mpp on both side, so building up was not really an option. Yet, it is simply an issue, that in the late game, you simply run out of units, not economy, since you take over territories, gain allies, and boost your economy, but the built limit stays, you get a few more aircraft and armor, but those won't eat your budget, only the art can do that, if you need them to be replaced, for same reason.