Just brainstorming here, what if the game punished resorting to the brute force approach (just spam units and steam-roll over the enemy forces) and rewarded tactical brilliance (destroy more enemy units while using less of your own)?
What I was thinking is that flag CP output could be modified depending on how effectively you use your units. This would be akin to your influence on “high command” going up or down depending on your performance.
Your flag CP output would increase when you destroy enemy units and decrease when you lose your own units. If you’re destroying a greater value in units than you’re losing then your CP income would go up and viceversa. This would have to be weighed against the cost of each unit, of course; sacrificing an AT infantry to destroy a tank should net an increase in CP income as opposed to just breaking even.
There could be a value for acceptable loses and expected kills to provide a little bit of wiggle room to avoid discouraging fighting altogether. If the value of the units you lose is less than acceptable loses then nothing happens but if it’s greater than acceptable loses then your CP income goes down. Likewise for expected kills: kill a value in units that’s less than expected and nothing happens, kill more than expected and CP income goes up. Furthermore, the value for acceptable loses and expected kills could be different for each faction to reflect ideology and socio-economic factors.
Finally, there should be a maximum and minimum value for flag CP output so you don’t end up with flags producing zero CP (or worse, negative ten CP) or super flags giving one hundred CP each.
Like I said in the beginning, I’m just brainstorming here. I have no idea how feasible or code intensive implementing this would be. If it’s completely unpractical then off to the “nice to have” drawer with it.
While I like the general principle, there are two things I am wary of.
Slippery slope. rewarding kills while punishing losses in a situation where one player has an advantageous position and the other player might need to make a fairly aggressive attack to push them back will result in the strengthening of the player who’s already ahead.
porc; this effectively rewards defensive setups really heavily, and punishes aggressive or bold tactics - it supports setting up a defensive line and then building a lot of artillery to bomb things from far away, rather than setting up smart flanks or the like.
Slippery slope. Your analysis differs from mine. I had envisioned this would counter slippery slope. At present, if you’re behind on resources and the enemy has enough forces to start taking flags from you then there’s little you can do. With this system the player at a disadvantage can at least attempt a last stand in a defensible position to bolster his CP income while at the same time reducing the enemy’s income until a counterattack can be launched.
Porc. This is why I proposed the acceptable loses and expected kills. You can still try being aggressive as long as you keep your loses reasonable. And even of you suffer more loses than what’s acceptable as long as you achieve some objective (capture better terrain or take some flags from the enemy) you should still come out on top. What I envisioned was punishing the commander that keeps trying the same thing over and over again even if it’s clearly not working.
Again, this is just an idea that popped into my head out of the blue. I’ll ultimately defer to your judgment on this.
I have to admit i would like this. maybe there would be like special rewards for doing these sorts of things, like air strikes or artillery barrage. This in a way cancels Corc because it will still be effective if you get a small band off assault soldiers and try the guerilla warfare.
as for the Slippery Slope, not necessarilly. if the losing team manages to get more kills then the superior team by trying strategies. they might get certain rewards. also, if you fight too brutely, this could act like a reminder of dont go wasting our soldiers. for example if you pass acceptable losses there might be downside, such as low morale or longer recruitment time
This doesn’t really do anything better than a completed prisoner system would.
True Ned, I hadn’t thought of prisoners like that.
anyways, been a busy weekend but I’ll have some time tomorrow to fix/change things and make a new build.
I’m also a little wary of this - with some factions and in some situations, heavy casualties may be required to get the job done. If for instance you’re playing the US and go up against a German or Soviet opponent with Tigers or IS-2s, my bet is you’re going to lose at least 3 Shermans for each heavy you knock off. Likewise, with Soviet infantry generally I find they take atrocious casualties, especially since the only area they really come out ahead in is close-quarters SMG combat and partisan attacks. On some maps, the only way I can beat C.R.A.I.G. is by playing the Sovs, because they can spam infantry and hold my lines in the face of heavy losses until I can get arty, assault guns, and tanks.
As is, I think we already have two systems in place that already do something like this. First is the suppression/pinning system; if your opponent is throwing forces into a meat grinder it’s likely not going to work anyway because their rate of movement and fire is getting slowed by incoming fire, making it easier to kill them. Second, units that live longer and score more kills get more experience and become overall tougher. Against C.R.A.I.G. I’ll often let the game run for a while with the AI battering itself senseless against my well-established lines so my tanks, arty, and infantry can rack up high experience levels for the game-ending blow. A King Tiger is bad enough fresh out of the yard; a King Tiger with an experience of 5 or better, 250% health, and bonuses in accuracy and fire rate is about as close as S1944 gets to the TA experience of a Krogoth descending on your base.
Overall, I think this is more a question of unit choices and tactics. Build the right units and put them in the right places and you’ll get the same effect.
Heavies now just have lots of HP, if you concider to shoot from the side or rear. (Which is easy now as they always turn their side towards what they are shooting at now.) Also, their range isn’t much if they can’t see.
I’d like to make something clear before I reply. I’ll defend this idea against any concerns posted in this thread but that doesn’t mean I’m pushing to have it necessarily implemented into the game.
I’ll start with Tiger88’s concerns. Losses would be tallied up based on a value, not unit count, and this value doesn’t necessarily have to correlate to CP cost. The Sherman, for example, can be given a lower “loss value” to emulate US high command realizing the shortcomings of Shermans and allowing for higher acceptable losses of said Shermans. On the other hand, Tigers, Tiger II’s and IS-2’s could be given a huge “kill value” to further make it worthwhile to trade three Shermans for one of those.
I address Neddie’s observation regarding prisoners with regret considering the time Nemo has put into getting prisoners to work. I agree that this system would accomplish something similar to a well implemented prisoners feature but I believe this system would be more versatile. You can only take infantry as prisoners (unless you add vehicle crews coming out of destroyed vehicles) while the proposed system could be made to work with every type of unit. This system would also require less micro. While it’s true that prisoners will walk automatically to your base, you have to take care to escort them so they don’t turn while in transit and then you have to guard them once they get to the base. Also, you have to take care not to kill prisoners by accident with AOE weapons and the like.
Tot: one big concern of mine is presenting such a mechanic in a way that it is intuitive and sensible - to me, prisoners present a very visible/intuitive way of demonstrating to a player that brute force is not the best approach. When you talk of ‘acceptable loss values’ varying per unit, I worry that you’re venturing into a system that is both low-visibility and high-complexity.
That said, I still think some basic form of this idea is important (perhaps prisoners/capture-able vehicles will be the answer)…
I would also be primarily worried about the intuitiveness of such a scheme (in fact I was writing this post as Nemo was posting)–to me it feels like too much invisible accounting. The direct effects are tied to resources, which is something rather removed from the immediacy of the battlefield. A player cannot figure out how well they are doing on this front except by looking at an artificial number, or by trying to apply a strict mathematical formula to a subjective recalling of recent (one presumes) history–there are no representatives in the game world itself to say how one is doing.
Also, I’m more inclined to agree with Nemo on the slippery-slope argument. All other things being equal, having more firepower will result in a better kill ratio. Sure, it might lead to punishing sloppy play at a would-be endgame, but it might also simply lead to drawn-out “house arrest” scenarios.
I do like the general idea of rewarding meaningful micro, though–micro is one resource that you don’t get more of by winning.
I suppose the main thing is I’m still a little confused about the concept of one player getting overwhelmed by “brute force.” Generally when I get cheesed in that fashion I more ask myself “Now, what did I do wrong?” Most of the time it means I either didn’t scout, didn’t make preparations for a certain type or avenue of attack, or didn’t put enough forethought into my resource and manufacturing base. Generally micro-ing should be required to win; if your opponent is on the ball a brute-force attack is not going to do much, except maybe in the early game if you can spit out a lot more infantry than he can. Even then, a couple dug-in MGs and some mortars is a good deterrent to an infantry rush.
As a player who generally brute-forces everything, I can tell you it isn’t terribly effective.
You sunk my battleship!!!
I don’t have an answer to the intuitiveness issue other than perhaps a widget showing how well you’re doing. Yet another widget would mean more clutter on the screen although the widget could be made small to mitigate that.
I guess this idea appeared better in my head than it actually is.
Generally I find that the best low-loss tactic translates to “bomb the bejeesus out of his defenses, then move in with overwhelming force.” If you’ve totally overbuilt your logistics and kept them safe from the enemy, and have enough command to keep a respectable tank/arty/air bite, shells and bombs are a lot cheaper to expend than troops. Scouting is key too - you find those nasty little defensive and offensive surprises before you hit them and then can destroy them at arm’s length.
The main issue with that though is having an opponent nice enough to let me get that far :mrgreen:
Tot: mostly the issue is one of implementation. I absolutely agree that some means of punishing WWI-style tactics (giant rush!) or rewarding more intelligent things like flanking/supply based/etc would be great, I’m just not sure how to do it. Theoretically flanking and such already has huge benefits (infantry take more damage when fired upon from multiple angles, tank armor is directional…)
Huge spasms (spams?) and planes already punish us with through-the-roof cpu usage. This is the reason why I nowadays prefer big maps with reduced income. This also gets a more intelligent gameplay going on. Many of these grand ideas that have been waged lately would thenagain totally blork up how games with lesser amount of units, work. That is why I still recommend the utilisation of ‘prisoners’ to ginger up large, frontal and stalemate-ish games.