CPP Costs

[ADB_Iceman]

I realize that CPP costs Works as Designed. But I might suggest that there is a problem with the design from a game standpoint.

The CPP costs for attacking and defending are fixed. This leads to predictable behaviors. Once a game is predictable it is no longer a game. A la tic-tac-toe .. The predictable outcome of fixed CPP costs no matter if a farmer is defending with a pitchfork or a massive front of well entrenched and supported combined arms is to recruit as many farmers as possible. That leads to WWI with trenches defended by farmers. Worse, there is no counter to this tactic and once it is learned the game itself has predictable results.

The firepower system offers an algorithm for gauging offensive and defensive commitment to a battle. A farmer with a pitchfork is likely going to be taken out by the first device. A well defended battle has a range of possibilities from a "scout" results with very few devices (if any squads) to a very engaged battle consuming much of the attackers resources.

A linear algorithm of devices/squads engaged/total devices * P(random) as a factor is probably a good start for evaluating an engagement. A reverse lambda probability density function is probably more historically accurate, but a lot tougher to design and code so it gives the right feel for the players.

A game in which the Germans know they will ground to a halt short of Smolensk will shortly become tired ..

[DesertedFox]

I agree.

I think the devs are a tad snowed under at present with their continual improvement of this great game.

However, CCP lost with something akin to the "combat delay" movement costs algorithm might work if it doesn't unbalance

the 41 GC.