 |
|
MC Changes - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: MC Changes (/showthread.php?tid=44003) Pages:
1
2
|
MC Changes - Aaron - 01-31-2008 I know it wont happen but now that D85 is out i thought id put my 2 cents in for what its worth. Just to start off great job to the D85 team and now the 2 changes i would and would have like to c happen. 1. In The First Blitzkrieg u have an option for your AC to be put in Air superiority,ground attack.They also take losses during this time in air superiority. I would love to c that ported over with an option for interdiction on top of it. I think this would represent the air war much better by having u use more AC for air superiority early in the game and as the game goes on switching more towards ground attack and interdiction, and the more AC u have on interdiction the more they interdict. And of course the ones u put in ground attack r your direct support units. 2. ZOCs- I unit of 3 vehicles shouldnt have a ZOC, i wish for a change in this area for example a units of 5 vehicles or less has no ZOC, or a unit of 50 men or less. Thats my 2 cents and i think ill go spend it now. Aaron RE: MC Changes - CptCav - 01-31-2008 Aaron, 1. I believe that adding addition air missions, especially air superiority, creates too many other issues that would have to be addressed to make it viable. For example, the game's air forces are generally only those aircraft that would normally be used in ground support missions (for example, F-15's are not included nor are FB-111's). You would have to have the aircraft classes changed to include whether or not it could be used in the various roles (interception, interdiction, CAP, ground support, etc.) Then, you would have to face the situations where a player would say why can't I put an FB-111 on CAP, after all it is a FIGHTER-bomber. So, you end up having to try to figure out all of the gamey actions of players that can affect the scenario. I do wish that there was a better way to attrit the air forces, but right now, I believe trying to add air capabilities would just create more harm than good. 2. Personally, I believe that a ZOC should not even be applicable at this scale. A company defends on a front of approximately one mile, which just happens to be the scale of this game. So, if you have battalions that can breakdown into company formations, why should they be deterred from doing so. As it stands now, a player will consolidate his companies into a single battalion in one hex and effectively prevent enemy movement in the adjacent hexes; however, in real life, the battalion would deploy one company in each of the adjoining hexes in order to prevent enemy movement through those hexes. And, you cannot say that the battalion consolidated in a one-mile hex can effectively control the adjacent mile hexes on either side of it; otherwise, why isn't it Army doctrine? Of course in order to take away the ZOC's there is one change that would need to be made, which is making the WarPac battalions capable of breaking down into companies. Otherwise, I would have to argue that the ability of the NATO forces to breakdown into companies needs to be removed in order to make ZOC's appropriate. My two cents. Regards, CptCav RE: MC Changes - Aaron - 01-31-2008 Ill take your 2 cents, now i have 4. I knew the air idea would never happen b/c i figured the game engine would need to be change and that wouldnt be worth HPS doing especially when the game is already released. I agree with u on the ZOCs, i thought myself to eliminate the companys in my scenario but decided against it, and i didnt break down the soviet Bn for simple fact the Pact AI would have gotten worse if it had a chance to attack with a companys instead of a Bn. A small unit shouldnt have a ZOC. 5 vehicles would have a hard time just controlling the hex they are in let alone the 6 hexes around it. Aaron RE: MC Changes - Titan - 01-31-2008 another suggestion is tht a lot of forest hexes should set tht most vehicles including track cannot move through them unless in a road hex...then both forms of movement can be made travel or tactical. The reason I say this is because while i was in germany there is no way that vehicles or takes would be moving through those forest. RE: MC Changes - Glenn Saunders - 01-31-2008 Titan Wrote:another suggestion is tht a lot of forest hexes should set tht most vehicles including track cannot move through them unless in a road hex...then both forms of movement can be made travel or tactical. The reason I say this is because while i was in germany there is no way that vehicles or takes would be moving through those forest. PREVENTING this action would take a rule change that isn't going to happen - but let me tell you what you can do to try this if you like. Adjust the PDT so the MP cost for all the Mot, Track ect class is so high that forest movement is 1 hex per turn? Frankly I don't think you will like the effect, but you can do it. Also consider that every WOODS hex is not 100% wood. Just as every Clear hex is not clear. In fact I would bet you would have to look hard to find 1 sq mile that doesn't have a ROAD. So when vehicles are moving through woods, paying a higher cost but moving a few hexes, they are likely moving down roads and tracks - maybe with local\tactical recon going on as the unit finds the best safest way to move from A to B. So try not to look to game aspects too precisely. Glenn RE: MC Changes - Glenn Saunders - 01-31-2008 tazaaron Wrote:Ill take your 2 cents, now i have 4. I knew the air idea would never happen b/c i figured the game engine would need to be change and that wouldnt be worth HPS doing especially when the game is already released. I agree with u on the ZOCs, i thought myself to eliminate the companys in my scenario but decided against it, and i didnt break down the soviet Bn for simple fact the Pact AI would have gotten worse if it had a chance to attack with a companys instead of a Bn. A small unit shouldnt have a ZOC. 5 vehicles would have a hard time just controlling the hex they are in let alone the 6 hexes around it. Well, here is a nickle you can try if you like. Make all your NATO COYS to be Platoons. Platoons have no ZOC in MC. It was a change that we were going to do to PzC too, but we pulled it back because of complaints about titles like PzC T41 where there were a lot of Platoon units. Besides, the hexes are 1 mile so it fits better than with the 1 km hexes in PzC. Don't worry about the WP - they are BTLN and a ZOC is not a bad thing for Btlns. I think you will find if you do this than you will have the effect you want - but without ZOC, the NATO line will be like swiss cheese. Glenn RE: MC Changes - Volcano Man - 01-31-2008 Excellent idea. Changing NATO companies to platoon designations will get exactly what you are looking for here and it will also retain the ZOC for when the unit is combined. I agree with Glenn, I think it would be hard to hold the line as NATO though, considering that with the way it is now units with vehicles < 10 which have a ZOC are usually quite easy to deal with (changing the way the game is played because of that nusance doesn't make much sense to me I guess). Anyway, before spending all kinds of time changing over the entire NATO side OOB it might be better to just convert the units in a single scenario to try it out first. RE: MC Changes - CptCav - 01-31-2008 Changing formations to platoon in no way accomplishes what I am looking for as the ZOC still exists for supply purposes, which means that a unit can still get isolated by two units (one each on opposing sides of it). In addition, a platoon suffers even greater penalties against its fatigue in combat.  So, unless the isolation rules are changed, no changes to the pdt ZOC formulas will work. And, I know that this will not happen, as there is not enough support for this idea. :cantswim: Believe me, I have looked at all kinds of ways to accomplish what I would like with the existing system, which I think is the best out there. So, until I win the lottery and can have my own game ideas made into a game, I believe that it will continue to be the best game system out there.  My dime. :soap: Regards, CptCav RE: MC Changes - Ricky B - 02-01-2008 Hey CptCav, Not sure you understand the rule change for platoons in the new game. Platoons don't exert ANY ZOC, I believe, and they definitely don't block supply, and thus do not isolate units unless a platoon is in every single hex. It doesn't help with the fatigue issue, for which I think the normal scaling is okay but it would be overstated if a company gets a platoon's worth of fatigue from a loss. Anyway, I tested the platoon zoc impact on supply and confirmed that it has no impact, along with helos - which I specifically tested during work on the game to ensure that worked right. Rick RE: MC Changes - Aaron - 02-01-2008 The platoon idea is a good thought but as Cav says the penalties as a platoon just gets worse than when it was a company. Im going to set up a small scenario just to c what happens. How easy would it be for HPS to make companys have no ZOC? and still retain the company level penalties. If u have a Bn in a hex and supposedly they deploy a company in the 2 adjacent hexes that covers 3 hexes as in a ZOC, if u deploy 3 separate companys from the same Bn in 3 adjacent hexes and the companys have no ZOC than it is still covering 3 hexes, makes sense to me. Good dime and nickel thoughts. Aaron |
){kind=link}