BGForums

No changes were made to the Engineers AFAIK...

And, yes, mines were never implemented (at least in the production version)....

Sorry Tony but what I saw was one man running to plant the explosives. And he ran back and got behind a tank. The engineer was telling about it himself. I know took awhile to responded to ur post.

Balthagor wrote:(...)
I'm still curious if anyone knows why engineers were so strong in People's General of if there are any other games that made have engineering type units and how they are balanced there.

Probably because since WW1 until Vietnam, combat engineer were more or less storm/shock troops cleaning prepared ennemy defensive positions (trenchs, buildings, bunkers,...) with special weapons like grenades, explosives (shaped charges sometimes in WW2), flamethrowers, smg, combat knifes...

Today, as far as i know, there's no more such troops since common mech infantry already have sufficent firepower (apart flamethrower, even if thermobaric could be seen as an "überflamthrower") and training to do the job.

Today's combat engineer i worked with are there to help infantry to go through obstacles ( by breaching doors, walls, barriers) and to prepare better defensive positions (IED, mining, sand bags, foxholes...).

Ingame's engineer are like wonder engineer since they do what combat engineer, construction engineer and infantry are doing, like a 3 in 1 super soldier

Given that they are not, once again afaik, working alone in real life but are rather "reinforcing" combat units, they could be simulated by a tech that give mech infantry* a close combat bonus.

*Mechanized Infantry is infantry fighting with aifv, either tracked or wheeled. The difference between mech and motorized infantry (trucks and apc) is simply that their is able to fight with them thanks to it's armor and firepower, it's no only their "taxi".

PS: later is better than never

cheers,

Jan

Oh, I understand most of the historical uses of engineers, but People's General is modern day (well sort of, I think it was Circa 1990) and I'm still looking for other games using an engineering type unit...

so, i may be wrong, but i see it as a bad habit from the Panzer General serie.

Balthagor wrote:(...)and I'm still looking for other games using an engineering type unit...

what do you need exactly?

cheers,

Jan

not really need, just would be nice to find. A wargame, present day to near future setting, that uses a unit similar to our engineer. Then I can see how they balance it vs. combat units and consider stealing their balance...

Balthagor wrote:not really need, just would be nice to find. A wargame, present day to near future setting, that uses a unit similar to our engineer. Then I can see how they balance it vs. combat units and consider stealing their balance...

Chris,

I think the SR2010 implementation of engineers is quite reasonable.

There is a difference, of course, between heavy construction engineers and what historically are called sappers or more recently combat engineers. The former is dedicated to building structures and bridges, etc. The latter are more tactical in nature -- being concerned with mobility, countermobility, mines, field defences, breaching obstacles and the like.

Combining all capabilities into one and calling it an "engineer" is fine by me. You probably lose a few shades of realism, but I don't think it is critical for game play.

Just make sure engineers are not as effective in combat as infantry & more expensive to build & have "extra" functions however defined and you should be good to go. Like I said above, SR2010 did this just fine.

Regards,
Feltan

i'm afraid to not be able to find a game that can be compared to your, sorry.

as Felatn said, the problem is mostly their combat abilities that are far too high given their real life capabilities.

it have an effect on the gameplay since the diversity of units is ignored by AI and players because of the "überness" of the engineers

cheers,

Jan

I'll falg this to be checked during beta testing, you guys can help us balance it at that stage.

Thanks.

will do with bug pleasure

I just realized that the newly designed Turkish engineer corps with that weird crane-turreted APC. (Puma?) cut through Greek tanks like paper.

I think their damage capabilities should only be activated when DUG IN as well. Emplacements should even further the boost.

Balthagor wrote:not really need, just would be nice to find. A wargame, present day to near future setting, that uses a unit similar to our engineer. Then I can see how they balance it vs. combat units and consider stealing their balance...

I would have thought that with all the wargames I have, computer and board, there would be a good example for you but I cannot find it. There are plenty of historical games (e.g., WWII) that implement engineers in interesting ways, but but nothing modern. I do like the way that both combat and construction engineers are modeled in some WWII games, though: neither are particularly great at fighting on their own, but combat engineers supply bonuses to other units' when attacking in certain situations, such as against fortifications, cities, or across rivers and such. Construction engineers don't fight (or at least aren't meant to, appologies to John Wayne and the mighty CB's) but enhance the abilities of unit's to dig in, build airstrips or bases, etc. I'd love to see a distinction like this in SR2020, as well as engineers that provide appropriate assistance to the units meant to fight as opposed to being a significant fighting force on their own as in SR2010.