JEB,
That whole "question on firing animations" thread was finished (information requested and information supplied) after the first two posts. All the insanity that happened after those first two posts led to misunderstanding and confusion and frustration and ultimately anger. I certainly misunderstood you.
Message board forums are notorius for creating confusion and misunderstandings. One of the reasons I try not to kid around on these forums is because I want to remain consistent. If everybody knows that I am not kidding when I post something, then that cuts down on misunderstandings.
Anyway, I appreciate your post here. Thank you for clearing up some obvious confusion on my part.
--Victor
Rigging The Game
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
RE: Rigging The Game
ORIGINAL: JEB Davis
I just tend to have a strange sense of humor, that's all.
If you saw his picture you would tend to agree.
[:D][:D][:D][:D]
RE: Rigging The Game
Once more on stacking limitations: the AI has no limits, which has benefits in attacking, but provides a tempting target for a mortar barrage.
For me, it just seems gamey to stack up half a dozen AFVs and 100 men in a single hex. If I want to provide depth to an attack, I prefer to take that literally, with 20-30 men backed by 20 or 30 more.
How many times in an advance is the order given to spread out, not clump up in a disorderly mob? The AI will clump up, but no sane human commander would ever conduct an assault in that fashion. It's a recipe for slaughter.
For me, it just seems gamey to stack up half a dozen AFVs and 100 men in a single hex. If I want to provide depth to an attack, I prefer to take that literally, with 20-30 men backed by 20 or 30 more.
How many times in an advance is the order given to spread out, not clump up in a disorderly mob? The AI will clump up, but no sane human commander would ever conduct an assault in that fashion. It's a recipe for slaughter.
RE: Rigging The Game
Erwin,
The problem is that I don't know how to add stacking to the Rig List. How would you add stacking to the Rig List?
The problem is that I don't know how to add stacking to the Rig List. How would you add stacking to the Rig List?
RE: Rigging The Game
ORIGINAL: vahauser
Erwin,
The problem is that I don't know how to add stacking to the Rig List. How would you add stacking to the Rig List?
I don't know either. It's a self-imposed realism house rule. No "rigging" at all --just common sense. If you must ask, though, I'd rate it near the top, for whatever that's worth.
RE: Rigging The Game
Another thing -- about mines -- we don't have one or two-man mine-clearing teams in the database. To give the AI mines takes away from its ability to buy more dug-in infantry or bunkers. That's the trade-off.
For mine-users, this implies a premium on buying engineer-type units. Once thru the minebelt, the human once again gains an advantage by having these heavily-armed assault units leading and wiping out entenched infantry with their flamethrowers and satchel charges.
In this instance, it is really a case of personal choice. The AI isn't smart enough to set up killing lanes with minefields, but it can place caves/bunkers/arty/ATG positions in unexpected places. This only adds to the drama when you think you've got the enemy beaten.
Nothing is more disheartening than suffering friendly casualties during the alleged "mop-up" phase of the battle.
I have stated my logic behind "no mines" repeatedly, but no one seems to notice my reasoning behind it.
For mine-users, this implies a premium on buying engineer-type units. Once thru the minebelt, the human once again gains an advantage by having these heavily-armed assault units leading and wiping out entenched infantry with their flamethrowers and satchel charges.
In this instance, it is really a case of personal choice. The AI isn't smart enough to set up killing lanes with minefields, but it can place caves/bunkers/arty/ATG positions in unexpected places. This only adds to the drama when you think you've got the enemy beaten.
Nothing is more disheartening than suffering friendly casualties during the alleged "mop-up" phase of the battle.
I have stated my logic behind "no mines" repeatedly, but no one seems to notice my reasoning behind it.
RE: Rigging The Game
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
For mine-users, this implies a premium on buying engineer-type units.
I disagree 150% with this. If you buy the core force you want to play, and have Mines ON, you play it with that core. If you do not have the self-control to not buy 15000 Engineers just because the enemy has mines, then I guess they should be turned off.
Regular infantry can clear mines. They take casualties doing it. Just like in real combat. Mines are a strong defense for the computer, and turning them off takes away one of its advantages, IMO (just like buying a ton of Engineers). Try it with your regular force. You will find your armored units doing nothing for the battle, until your leg units find and clear those fields, while taking casualties doing it.
Goblin
RE: Rigging The Game
Et tu, Alby?ORIGINAL: Alby
ORIGINAL: JEB Davis
I just tend to have a strange sense of humor, that's all.
If you saw his picture you would tend to agree.
[:D][:D][:D][:D]
Reduce SP:WaW slaughter, "Low Carnage":
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
RE: Rigging The Game
[;)]ORIGINAL: JEB Davis
Et tu, Alby?ORIGINAL: Alby
ORIGINAL: JEB Davis
I just tend to have a strange sense of humor, that's all.
If you saw his picture you would tend to agree.
[:D][:D][:D][:D]
RE: Rigging The Game
Erwin,
Mines
I understand your reasoning regarding mines OFF. I just don't think that your reasoning helps the computer. What you are saying is that the computer can buy more units since the computer isn't spending those points on mines. Agreed. But I think that the points spent on mines is more dangerous than those same points spent on extra units. Also, there is no guarantee that the computer will spend those 'extra' points on useful units (like forts), but might instead waste them on units like snipers and knee mortars.
Further, mines will definitely slow down any assault. It is true that once the minebelt is pierced a player’s troops will have better maneuverability, but the minebelt will still be there, channeling the assault. And friendly units retreating onto the minebelt are in serious danger. Plus, piercing the minebelt is going to take several turns, turns that the computer can use to bombard a largely static assault force as it tries to clear the minebelt.
In addition, Assault Missions occur around 20% of the time (1 in 5 missions are Assault Missions). This means that buying lots of assault engineers might not be cost effective for the other 80% of the missions in the campaign. I personally spend around 20-25% of my initial core points on assault units (engineers, assault guns, etc.) based on mission percentages. So, if I build a core of say 2500 points, then 600 points or so will be assault units (for instance, a reduced strength Sturm company if I’m playing the Germans).
You are correct in one respect, though. Choosing to play a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign renders the computer entirely predictable. You know ahead of time how the computer is going to prepare its defenses. This is one of many reasons that choosing a WW2 Long Campaign ranks a 10+ (and a Generated Campaign ranks a 9) on the ‘Rig List’.
Stacking
Let’s say that somebody plays using unlimited stacking (like most players do). This allows serious abuses in WW2 Long Campaigns and Generated Campaigns because the player knows how the computer is going to operate. Not the same in a custom designed campaign (like Wild Bill’s Long Long Road) because the battles are not predictable. For instance, in a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign the player knows that the computer will never conduct an airstrike during a ‘pre-game’ bombardment, or any kind of ‘pre-game’ bombardment at all, unless the computer is conducting an Assault Mission. But in a custom designed campaign this is not true. So the player can take advantage of unlimited stacking to a much greater extent in a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign.
But where to rank unlimited stacking? Is it a bigger advantage than USMC artillery and its 0.1 delay? I don’t think so because whether a player stacks or not, having ‘instant’ artillery means ‘instant’ ability to disrupt whatever the computer is doing. And since whatever the computer is doing is perfectly predictable in a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign, then USMC artillery is predictably overwhelming. Most players don’t stack 200 units in a hex simply because it is too difficult and tedious to select individual units out of such an enormous stack. And moving means that huge stacks will have to spread out into smaller stacks. So, in practice, I suspect that most all players tend to operate in manageable stacks just because its easier to sort through stacks that way (manageable being say 8-12 units maximum because that is just about the limit that the eye can pick out individual units in a stack).
Also, rapid maneuvers pretty much eliminate large stacks because units moving near full speed have no extra movement for stacking. So, large stacks means slow moving or static positions. At the start of a battle, this can still be a big advantage for the human player, since he can pile into a single important road junction his entire force. But once the battle begins, those huge piles will thin out simply because of the way people play and the way the game mechanics work. So unlimited stacking is mainly an advantage during deployment and the first turn. After that, the large stacks will thin out during the course of play.
Further, unlimited stacking is not very useful on defense. Large stacks during Delay and Defend missions don’t help the player very much at all and are probably a liability most of the time.
Don’t misunderstand me. I do believe that unlimited stacking gives the human a definite advantage against the computer, especially during Meeting Engagements, Advance and Assault Missions (i.e., 60% of the time).
When I play against the computer, my personal stacking rule is 3 units per hex any time, 4 units per hex under special circumstances (I typically allow commanders to go into any hex they want), and up to 6 units per hex on rare occasions, like when 3 trucks unload in a hex (which must be reduced to 4 units or less as soon as possible, the same turn if possible). This works pretty well and fits with what I’ve learned about maximum combat densities during WW2.
I would rate unlimited stacking (which actually works out to a practical maximum of around 8-12 units per hex for reasons stated above), as around a 3 to 5 on the ‘Rig List’ depending on the kind of battle being fought.
Here is a revised list:
Choosing to play a WW2 Long Campaign (10+, the most overwhelming advantage a player can rig for himself)
Choosing to employ mines and barbed wire and dragons teeth (10)
Choosing to play a Generated Campaign (9, almost as overwhelming as a WW2 Long Campaign)
Choosing the US Army or USMC (5, American artillery)
Choosing to employ airstrikes (4 or 5 depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ ‘unlimited’ stacking (3-5, depending of the type of battle being fought)
Choosing the Germans or Soviets or British (3 or 4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ on-board artillery larger than 82mm mortars (2-4, depending on size of artillery)
Choosing to employ commando special operations (2-4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ airborne operations (2-4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ Rarity OFF (1-4, depending on the kind of campaign being played)
Choosing to play with C&C OFF (2)
Choosing to play with AutoRally ON (1 or 2, depending on the size of your core)
Choosing to use reinforcements during play (1 or 2, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to play with Op-Fire Confirm ON (1)
Choosing Reduced Ammo ON (1, only if playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign)
Choosing Reduced Squads ON (1, only if playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign)
Mines
I understand your reasoning regarding mines OFF. I just don't think that your reasoning helps the computer. What you are saying is that the computer can buy more units since the computer isn't spending those points on mines. Agreed. But I think that the points spent on mines is more dangerous than those same points spent on extra units. Also, there is no guarantee that the computer will spend those 'extra' points on useful units (like forts), but might instead waste them on units like snipers and knee mortars.
Further, mines will definitely slow down any assault. It is true that once the minebelt is pierced a player’s troops will have better maneuverability, but the minebelt will still be there, channeling the assault. And friendly units retreating onto the minebelt are in serious danger. Plus, piercing the minebelt is going to take several turns, turns that the computer can use to bombard a largely static assault force as it tries to clear the minebelt.
In addition, Assault Missions occur around 20% of the time (1 in 5 missions are Assault Missions). This means that buying lots of assault engineers might not be cost effective for the other 80% of the missions in the campaign. I personally spend around 20-25% of my initial core points on assault units (engineers, assault guns, etc.) based on mission percentages. So, if I build a core of say 2500 points, then 600 points or so will be assault units (for instance, a reduced strength Sturm company if I’m playing the Germans).
You are correct in one respect, though. Choosing to play a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign renders the computer entirely predictable. You know ahead of time how the computer is going to prepare its defenses. This is one of many reasons that choosing a WW2 Long Campaign ranks a 10+ (and a Generated Campaign ranks a 9) on the ‘Rig List’.
Stacking
Let’s say that somebody plays using unlimited stacking (like most players do). This allows serious abuses in WW2 Long Campaigns and Generated Campaigns because the player knows how the computer is going to operate. Not the same in a custom designed campaign (like Wild Bill’s Long Long Road) because the battles are not predictable. For instance, in a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign the player knows that the computer will never conduct an airstrike during a ‘pre-game’ bombardment, or any kind of ‘pre-game’ bombardment at all, unless the computer is conducting an Assault Mission. But in a custom designed campaign this is not true. So the player can take advantage of unlimited stacking to a much greater extent in a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign.
But where to rank unlimited stacking? Is it a bigger advantage than USMC artillery and its 0.1 delay? I don’t think so because whether a player stacks or not, having ‘instant’ artillery means ‘instant’ ability to disrupt whatever the computer is doing. And since whatever the computer is doing is perfectly predictable in a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign, then USMC artillery is predictably overwhelming. Most players don’t stack 200 units in a hex simply because it is too difficult and tedious to select individual units out of such an enormous stack. And moving means that huge stacks will have to spread out into smaller stacks. So, in practice, I suspect that most all players tend to operate in manageable stacks just because its easier to sort through stacks that way (manageable being say 8-12 units maximum because that is just about the limit that the eye can pick out individual units in a stack).
Also, rapid maneuvers pretty much eliminate large stacks because units moving near full speed have no extra movement for stacking. So, large stacks means slow moving or static positions. At the start of a battle, this can still be a big advantage for the human player, since he can pile into a single important road junction his entire force. But once the battle begins, those huge piles will thin out simply because of the way people play and the way the game mechanics work. So unlimited stacking is mainly an advantage during deployment and the first turn. After that, the large stacks will thin out during the course of play.
Further, unlimited stacking is not very useful on defense. Large stacks during Delay and Defend missions don’t help the player very much at all and are probably a liability most of the time.
Don’t misunderstand me. I do believe that unlimited stacking gives the human a definite advantage against the computer, especially during Meeting Engagements, Advance and Assault Missions (i.e., 60% of the time).
When I play against the computer, my personal stacking rule is 3 units per hex any time, 4 units per hex under special circumstances (I typically allow commanders to go into any hex they want), and up to 6 units per hex on rare occasions, like when 3 trucks unload in a hex (which must be reduced to 4 units or less as soon as possible, the same turn if possible). This works pretty well and fits with what I’ve learned about maximum combat densities during WW2.
I would rate unlimited stacking (which actually works out to a practical maximum of around 8-12 units per hex for reasons stated above), as around a 3 to 5 on the ‘Rig List’ depending on the kind of battle being fought.
Here is a revised list:
Choosing to play a WW2 Long Campaign (10+, the most overwhelming advantage a player can rig for himself)
Choosing to employ mines and barbed wire and dragons teeth (10)
Choosing to play a Generated Campaign (9, almost as overwhelming as a WW2 Long Campaign)
Choosing the US Army or USMC (5, American artillery)
Choosing to employ airstrikes (4 or 5 depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ ‘unlimited’ stacking (3-5, depending of the type of battle being fought)
Choosing the Germans or Soviets or British (3 or 4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ on-board artillery larger than 82mm mortars (2-4, depending on size of artillery)
Choosing to employ commando special operations (2-4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ airborne operations (2-4, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to employ Rarity OFF (1-4, depending on the kind of campaign being played)
Choosing to play with C&C OFF (2)
Choosing to play with AutoRally ON (1 or 2, depending on the size of your core)
Choosing to use reinforcements during play (1 or 2, depending on nation and year)
Choosing to play with Op-Fire Confirm ON (1)
Choosing Reduced Ammo ON (1, only if playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign)
Choosing Reduced Squads ON (1, only if playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign)
RE: Rigging The Game
Ammo and ammo re-supply.
I've spent some time thinking about this issue regarding 'rigging the game'.
What are your thoughts on ammo and ammo re-supply in the game?
How many of you use ammo re-supply?
I've spent some time thinking about this issue regarding 'rigging the game'.
What are your thoughts on ammo and ammo re-supply in the game?
How many of you use ammo re-supply?
RE: Rigging The Game
ORIGINAL: vahauser
Ammo and ammo re-supply.
I've spent some time thinking about this issue regarding 'rigging the game'.
What are your thoughts on ammo and ammo re-supply in the game?
How many of you use ammo re-supply?
You mean buying ammo carriers/crates? Yes, I buy them, to keep my dreaded USMC mortars topped up. Is it an advantage? Most definitely, as the AI doesn't buy them. I'd rank that pretty high on the rigometer. Of course, if one of those gets in the sights of an enemy unit, the AI will zero in on it quickly, and when one of them blows up, the suppression level of your adjacent units increases.
One question, though -- what is the purpose of all this subjective quantifying and analyzing?
RE: Rigging The Game
I wonder if there are any players who do not use ammo re-supply. If any of you do not, I'd very much like to read about your perspective.
The more I think about ammo re-supply, the more questions I come up with. I'm very interested in what other players think about ammo re-supply.
EDIT:
At which point does the use of ammo re-supply become an advantage for the human? I don’t think this an easy question to answer because of the way the dynamics of a human versus computer battle work.
For instance, the computer will almost always outnumber the human player. The outnumbered player will experience greater ammo expenditure per unit since he has more targets to shoot at. This greatly favors the side with more units.
Another factor to consider is the kind of battle being fought. Ammo expenditure is typically higher in offensive operations. Assault missions especially.
Right now, I believe that any human who plays with AI Advantage ON and Hard Battle (x2), like I do, is at a serious disadvantage against the computer without some form of ammo re-supply. However, how much ammo re-supply is enough to be ‘balanced and fair’ and yet not give the human player an advantage against the computer?
That is the question.
The more I think about ammo re-supply, the more questions I come up with. I'm very interested in what other players think about ammo re-supply.
EDIT:
At which point does the use of ammo re-supply become an advantage for the human? I don’t think this an easy question to answer because of the way the dynamics of a human versus computer battle work.
For instance, the computer will almost always outnumber the human player. The outnumbered player will experience greater ammo expenditure per unit since he has more targets to shoot at. This greatly favors the side with more units.
Another factor to consider is the kind of battle being fought. Ammo expenditure is typically higher in offensive operations. Assault missions especially.
Right now, I believe that any human who plays with AI Advantage ON and Hard Battle (x2), like I do, is at a serious disadvantage against the computer without some form of ammo re-supply. However, how much ammo re-supply is enough to be ‘balanced and fair’ and yet not give the human player an advantage against the computer?
That is the question.
RE: Rigging The Game
ORIGINAL: vahauser
I wonder if there are any players who do not use ammo re-supply. If any of you do not, I'd very much like to read about your perspective.
The more I think about ammo re-supply, the more questions I come up with. I'm very interested in what other players think about ammo re-supply.
EDIT:
At which point does the use of ammo re-supply become an advantage for the human? I don’t think this an easy question to answer because of the way the dynamics of a human versus computer battle work.
For instance, the computer will almost always outnumber the human player. The outnumbered player will experience greater ammo expenditure per unit since he has more targets to shoot at. This greatly favors the side with more units.
Another factor to consider is the kind of battle being fought. Ammo expenditure is typically higher in offensive operations. Assault missions especially.
Right now, I believe that any human who plays with AI Advantage ON and Hard Battle (x2), like I do, is at a serious disadvantage against the computer without some form of ammo re-supply. However, how much ammo re-supply is enough to be ‘balanced and fair’ and yet not give the human player an advantage against the computer?
That is the question.
Ok, you have a finite number of support points in a vs AI battle. If you keep your off-board fire support to realistic levels, it goes to follow that you don't clutter up the map with ammo carriers. Nevertheless, I'd think that at least one ammo carrier per company would be reasonable. For 1942 and earlier USMC battles, ammo supply was a legitimate concern. From 1943 on, it's virtually unlimited. At that point, I have an ammo carrier for each 81mm mortar section (two), and possibly two sections of onboard 75mm pack howitzers (two) plus one for each rifle platoon (9). So, a max of 13, IF the support points are available. Even without the off-board support, that's a lot of firepower for a battalion.
-
FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: Rigging The Game
ORIGINAL: vahauser
Another factor to consider is the kind of battle being fought. Ammo expenditure is typically higher in offensive operations. Assault missions especially.
I disagree with this part. I find I use more ammo when I am defending against the AI horde than when I am attacking/assaulting the AI. This applies to direct-fire, not indirect artillery fire. Many times I am forced to withdraw MG or LMG units from my MLR after emptying their ammo into an advancing enemy. I've even had numerous infantry units run out of rifle ammo.
RE: Rigging The Game
FlashFyre,
You've brought up a useful distinction, that is, indirect fire ammo as separate from direct fire ammo.
How do you employ your ammo re-supply units? In the rear with the artillery?
In a typical campaign battle, how many ammo re-supply units do you use?
You've brought up a useful distinction, that is, indirect fire ammo as separate from direct fire ammo.
How do you employ your ammo re-supply units? In the rear with the artillery?
In a typical campaign battle, how many ammo re-supply units do you use?
-
FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: Rigging The Game
Amount of resupply depends on core force composition and size; I usually have 1 Ammo Crate per 2 mortar/onboard artillery pieces. I place them with my artillery, which is usually within 10 hexes of the MLR in a defense battle. In the event a front-line unit runs out, I work at moving them to the resupply point.
While indirect fire units typically run out of ammo fast, and we are all experienced with that, running out of ammo for a squad's rifles or a MG is rare enough, except in large Defend battles. In these types of fights, if enough Support Points are provided, I buy 2-3 additional Ammo Crates and place them within 5 hexes of the MLR, as platoon resupply points.
I only purchase Ammo Carrier (mobile versons) units when I have mobile artillery, such as M7 Priests or Bishops. I use the immobile Ammo Crate units 90% of the time.
While indirect fire units typically run out of ammo fast, and we are all experienced with that, running out of ammo for a squad's rifles or a MG is rare enough, except in large Defend battles. In these types of fights, if enough Support Points are provided, I buy 2-3 additional Ammo Crates and place them within 5 hexes of the MLR, as platoon resupply points.
I only purchase Ammo Carrier (mobile versons) units when I have mobile artillery, such as M7 Priests or Bishops. I use the immobile Ammo Crate units 90% of the time.
RE: Rigging The Game
At least one person on this forum has stated that I abuse ammo-resupply and give myself a big advantage against the computer.
Based on the information just given by FlashFyre and Erwin, the amount of ammo resupply I gave myself in my Group Anders Long Long Road campaign is perfectly in line with what those two players do in this regard (I had 12 on-board artillery, 8 mortars and 4 25lbrs, and I gave myself 6 ammo crates).
Of course, just because I give myself ammo resupply in line with what other players give themselves does not mean that the person calling me out for abusing the ammo-resupply rules is necessarily out of line. I could very well be giving myself an advantage, hence my questions concerning ammo resupply. But at least I know that I'm not giving myself more ammo resupply than other people.
A further consideration is the length of the battle. Shorter battles require less ammo, in general, than longer battles. This isn't always true, but as a general guideline it does apply.
Anyway, I'm still giving thought to the question, "At what point does the number of ammo-resupply units become an advantage for the human player?"
Clearly, using zero ammo resupply is a disadvantage for the human player due to reasons stated previously in this thread. But as of now, I'm not much closer to answering the question than I was last week.
Based on the information just given by FlashFyre and Erwin, the amount of ammo resupply I gave myself in my Group Anders Long Long Road campaign is perfectly in line with what those two players do in this regard (I had 12 on-board artillery, 8 mortars and 4 25lbrs, and I gave myself 6 ammo crates).
Of course, just because I give myself ammo resupply in line with what other players give themselves does not mean that the person calling me out for abusing the ammo-resupply rules is necessarily out of line. I could very well be giving myself an advantage, hence my questions concerning ammo resupply. But at least I know that I'm not giving myself more ammo resupply than other people.
A further consideration is the length of the battle. Shorter battles require less ammo, in general, than longer battles. This isn't always true, but as a general guideline it does apply.
Anyway, I'm still giving thought to the question, "At what point does the number of ammo-resupply units become an advantage for the human player?"
Clearly, using zero ammo resupply is a disadvantage for the human player due to reasons stated previously in this thread. But as of now, I'm not much closer to answering the question than I was last week.
RE: Rigging The Game
Using ammo re-supply units is an advantage to the human player, because the AI doesn't buy them.
This is also an advantage when using reduced ammo ON and national characteristics ON, as some countries have reduced ammo supplies in the late-war years (I think Japan is one of them).
Dependent on the length of the battle, I have seen the AI's arty fire shrink to virtually nothing, while I can keep my on-board fire assets going and going (just like the famous Energizer Bunny).
The only downside, as I mentioned before, is getting one of those ammo units blown up in proximity to one of your combat units.
This is also an advantage when using reduced ammo ON and national characteristics ON, as some countries have reduced ammo supplies in the late-war years (I think Japan is one of them).
Dependent on the length of the battle, I have seen the AI's arty fire shrink to virtually nothing, while I can keep my on-board fire assets going and going (just like the famous Energizer Bunny).
The only downside, as I mentioned before, is getting one of those ammo units blown up in proximity to one of your combat units.
-
FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: Rigging The Game
All ammo resupply is an advantage to the player, because, as has been stated, the AI never buys them (unless the OOB formations the AI buys have been modified to include them). And even if the AI had them, it doesn't know how to use them. So in any non-designed battle (campaign or random generated) the AI is incapable of proper placement and use of the ammo resupply units, but the human player does not suffer from this problem.
As to how much of an advantage, that's up to you to decide, Vahauser. To me, a single ammo resupply unit for the player is a major advantage, and adding more ammo units doesn't change it.
As to how much of an advantage, that's up to you to decide, Vahauser. To me, a single ammo resupply unit for the player is a major advantage, and adding more ammo units doesn't change it.