Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
LordTyrantFTW
Sergeant
Posts: 11
Joined: Nov 14 2017
Human: Yes

Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#1 Post by LordTyrantFTW » Nov 14 2017

Good afternoon, ladies and gents! I'd like to foremost preface this post by extending my commendations towards Battlegoat Studios for creating one of the most intriguing grand strategy titles I've experienced to date! With over 1500 hours of gameplay; I've thoroughly enjoyed the title and it's scenarios. Hailing from the proud hometown of Waterloo; and as a fellow Canadian, gentlemen, I applaud your efforts both past and present to provide both great service, and a great product!

The insight I'd like to offer today is based on empirical game play observations over the 1,500 hours I've spent playing Supreme Ruler Ultimate across various scenarios as multiple nations, with many variations of settings.

Thread introductions aside!

Today, I'd like to introduce a topic of analysis regarding the impact of military efficiency and DEFCON war elevation, and how this interaction impacts the outcome and flow of warfare in Supreme Ruler Ultimate. In section one; I'll be providing my interpretation of DEFCON military efficiency impacts and mechanics in war. The analysis will be performed in a theoretical fashion. The goal of the following theoretical situation is to take a closer look at the interaction between two land units in war. The analysis will shed insight on what I believe is a positive feedback loop that exists as a core underlying factor leading to undesirable conditions and outcomes when two AI players "go to war".

Section One : DEFCON Military Efficiency Bonus: Stronger units becomes stronger; The Postitive Feedback Loop

In a theoretical situation of war in Supreme Ruler Ultimate where both nation have a relative base efficiency parity and DEFCON efficiency bonus of 20% each - this can be interpreted as moot or irrelevant at first, as both nations are "20% more effective". This interpretation however couldn't be any closer to incorrect.

In a given theoretical scenario, Unit A, of a technologically superior nation whose average stat value of 30; gains the multiplier of 1.2. Unit B, of a technologically inferior nation, whose average stat value is 20, gains the same multiplier of 1.2. The initial difference in overall stat value is 10, as the average values of Unit A are 30 and Unit B are 20 respectively. When the multiplier is applied, Unit A; 30 * 1.2 = 36; Unit B; 20 * 1.2 = 24. After the multiplier is considered, the statistical difference grows in disparity to 12 stat points; in theory.

Why is this a problem?

It's true a technologically superior unit should be stronger. However, under the pretext of war, this gap widens even further than the initial statistics suggest, as after efficiencies are applies, there is a stat difference of 12 (36 to 24) versus the initial stat difference of 10 (30 to 20).

Unit B in the above scenario, in a one on one confrontation scenario, is meeting the damage threshold to "route/retreat or turn away for repair" before Unit A, as it would in any scenario, war or not, however, at a greater rate under DEFCON elevation. Unit B is also inflicting less damage due to the greater disparity of stats when efficiency is applied. When this occurs in gameplay, the probability that unit B will successfully route or retreat is greatly diminished. When the first stack falls, and the AI player who is technologically inferior suffers it's first down-tick of MAR, is when the positive feedback loop begins it's accelerated pace towards "military collapse".

Section Two : Singularity Point MAR; "Military Collapse"

The small change in relative stats has now caused major repercussions in game-play. The inferior nation (Unit B) will typically suffer military losses until a threshold is reached, this threshold being defined by the MAR percentage in which said front line unit has zero probability to successfully route or retreat. At this point, the full effects of the feedback loop are realized. This is a point, which quite literally is a singularity point, henceforth dubbed "Singularity Point MAR".

When this mathematical point is met is a matter of time, it's how war works in Supreme Ruler 2020. The speed at which this happens however is extremely rapid at any setting. The pace at which the deterioration of a military force occurs is a function of the relative base stats of the units and the relative MAR of contending forces. As such, this can be easily controlled and mitigated by adding a bottom cap on MAR. Whether this value should be 30% or 50% or otherwise would require testing, but based on empirical game play experience, it should be strongly considered as a means of controlling this described feedback loop which undermines AI versus AI warfare in Supreme Ruler Ultimate.

Section Three : Do Land Unit Turn Times decide the Fate of a Nation?

In the described scenario, early, Unit B was described as "Turning away to route for repair." In this scenario; when a unit does get destroyed, it's typically while turning away, or while moving away from combat. A major part of the feedback loop as described above is indeed tied to global physics. The importance of unit turn times is a physical game-play mechanic that must be given some attention and consideration in regards to its overall impact on warfare in Supreme Ruler Ultimate. Turn times have to be reduced given the current behavior of "loss tolerance"; and units must be given the ability to successfully route or retreat for AI players to wage longer wars. Considerations to reduce repair times significantly would also compliment the decreased rate of front-line attrition.

Mechanically speaking, mathematically speaking, Unit B in our scenario will always spend more time than Unit A in a state of turning away, or routing/pathing away towards repair. In the loop, there is no possible way Unit B of Nation B will ever be able to win a war, as the singularity point MAR undermines the potential quantity advantage possessed by one side. If Nation B sends more Unit B, Unit B will suffer a magnification of losses, further speeding up the positive feedback loop of MAR loss in the current model. In this fashion, numbers actually work against the inferior nation as they're a liability to MAR. Each unit Nation B possesses is quite literally a magnification of it's susceptibility to the loop, creating an environment where the greater the force of Nation B, the less effective it is.

If these systems were to be reconciled and balanced; it would create an environment where debt and economy also become a factor in warfare, as nations would be able to successfully retreat units into repair throughout the course of a campaign/war. Nation B, spending more time routing and repairing Unit B, may be able to win the war economically under the correct circumstances if not militarily by force if the proper economic conditions exist.

Section Four : If not ME percentage, what works for DEFCON?

In the place of military efficiency, I'd recommend a significant supply/infrastructure bonus during war. This would represent the concentration of stance expenditure into "total war production and military logistics", the later of which appears to be very under represented in the current scope of warfare in Supreme Ruler Ultimate. (No modern force; realistically would get stranded anywhere... they'd of course have planned logistical supply lines, represented by infrastructure in-game) This would also serve to mitigate pathing and supply issues that remain prevalent in desolate regions (Northern Brazil, Siberia, parts of Africa) through providing a relevant positive modifier through infrastructure for the AI player. Additionally, this option may be a "lower resource" option as it will not require the revision or creation of new code to correct fundamental deficiencies in AI interaction with the supply model. Just buff the @#$# out of supply during war, gents.

Section Five : The Disclaimer

All of the above insight is theoretical in nature; and open to debate.I seek only to offer insight that I hope proves to be valuable in the future success of your product and title! Supreme Ruler Ultimate is THE best grand strategy out there, and it's future success and improvement isn't only important for my well being (hahah!) however, would sincerely make me proud, gentlemen!

Thanks for your time!
LordTyrantFTW

Edit 11/15/17 :: After making observations in a game while using limited military approval settings, this phenomenon continues to persist despite MAR fluctuations playing a minor factor. Inconsistencies in unit turn times and behavior exist. Sometimes a unit will drive "backwards", sometimes a unit will decide to turn away and path. Sometime a unit will engage an enemy "sideways". Although the "point in which a unit has zero probability to route" is never reached with limited MAR effects, the behavior of land unit turn times themselves still creates a model in which Unit B in our scenario is at a much greater disadvantage than intended.

evildari
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 240
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#2 Post by evildari » Nov 15 2017

Thank you for this in-depth explanation.

I have to add a few points to your Section two:

The rapidly lowering MAR - wich i usually leads to mass deserts of units to the enemy - sometimes seemingly just by contact without firing a shot -
can also triggered by a very high local supremacy to a technological superior but totally outgunned force.
If that the hightech-region units would come back to help on that new front, the MAR would be already at the bottom, and those elite veteran units would just put their hands in the air and change sides. (just disbanded would bad enough or help in this case - but they are added to the enemy army!)

This happened to me vs an AI - did not matter that i had almost everything 10times more and better - the low MAR and mass desertation of units killed me.
Unfortunately the MAR hit does not account for the scope of the losses - if an empire from the german-french border up to bejing, is killed by loosing a few cities near that french border and a few dozen fresh produced green units, then something is not "grand" in this strategy.
Maybe a very easy calculation could help with it: reduce MAR only by the percentage of the units destroyed compared to units total - or even better - use the casualties compared to total army staff including reserves. Numbers that are already tracked for every region.

Since then i use only the "limit approval effects" options and watch my back. I wish it was rather a slider that could be set to any value..like 0.
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 87&t=26151 (MARSX1)

LordTyrantFTW
Sergeant
Posts: 11
Joined: Nov 14 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#3 Post by LordTyrantFTW » Nov 15 2017

Thank you for the further insight, my friend! I too, for the past several days, have now been playing with limited military approval effects to observe differences in warfare without MAR factoring into the equation.

While reducing MAR effects does help to reduce instances of "military collapse", land unit turn times and inconsistencies in their turning actions, combined with AI loss tolerance behavior, coupled with the military efficiency bonus that makes "stronger high value units stronger relative to weaker low value units" still plays a large factor in AI players losing entire armies in a short period of time. It doesn't help that AI behavior is "send all units into the meat grinder until none remain". Resolution? Remove the meat grinder.

The 7 unit per hex limit should be a HARD limit. We can't have stacks of 100 units insta-gibbing singular AI units moving into defensive positions. This results in a serious steam roller mechanic, where one side that establishes dominance begins inflicting irrecoverable losses to the side that must route first by amassing unmatched firepower on one hex. The AI doesn't create a secondary defensive position when one is lost. They simply continue pathing units to the lost zone.

Changing AI behavior is a serious change, one i don't propose. I think this behavior can work if the unit hex limit was enforced. The hex system in combat is underused currently; and as described, combat is literally 100s of units facing off in one hex versus another.

The best fix in my opinion, again, is not to change AI, but to enforce the hex unit limit. Make that a HARD limit of 7 and let the hex system provide interesting strategic lines of battle.

LordTyrantFTW
Sergeant
Posts: 11
Joined: Nov 14 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#4 Post by LordTyrantFTW » Nov 15 2017

Double post apologies aside; i'd just like to briefly post a summary of the above propositions.

1. ME bonus in war is a mechanic that is doubly punishing the technologically inferior nation. Inferiority is already built into the tech and unit design system, and a modifier to the already existing disparity is unnecessary and contributes to faster unit losses in combat, contributing to "short warfare" in SRU. (Evident with MAR limited setting, impacts those playing with limited MAR effects)

2. MAR as a mechanic itself creates a positive feedback loop when combined with the above point that results in extremely rapid military campaigns in SRU. MAR must be given a cap to which it can fall if it's to be viable as a system mathematically. This value should be 50% or more based on game-play experience. (For those that choose to play with MAR approval effects at full)

3. Global unit turn times need a positive multiplier. Give them 150% turn time. The individual unit turning/pathing behavior appears to be inconsistent, however, when units DO turn and path in an engagement, it results in a massive disadvantage in said engagement, and this disadvantage should be mitigated as much as possible to prolong engagements and reduce questionable unit losses.

4. Enforcing the seven unit hex limit would reduce the tendency of AI behavior of stacking their military in "One hex versus one hex" conflicts, where the nation that can stack the most firepower wins. This behavior contributes massively to unit losses in game, as singular AI units continue to path into the conflict, and are instantly destroyed or desert due to the strength of force on one hex.

YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 600
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#5 Post by YoMomma » Nov 16 2017

LordTyrantFTW wrote: 4. Enforcing the seven unit hex limit would reduce the tendency of AI behavior of stacking their military in "One hex versus one hex" conflicts, where the nation that can stack the most firepower wins. This behavior contributes massively to unit losses in game, as singular AI units continue to path into the conflict, and are instantly destroyed or desert due to the strength of force on one hex.
I dont really agree with your other obeservations, or better said only play with limited MAR, but this one reminds me of SR2020. It is not exactly 7. Like 7 stay in 1 hex and when another stack of 7 cross by, only 3 at a time cross. A hard limit of 10 so to say. I think this is very player friendly. Might be more interesting and help AI. Not sure.

I only faced the AI like that a cpl of times. Where France put 600 units in 1 city against Netherlands. I was overrun because it was city vs city, loaded my save game before war, and as soon you face an overwhelming force, make sure your fighting in a city and not them, then they will try other options, if your fighting city vs city you just have to retreat. That's why i think AI entrenching would be very interesting when it facing a bigger army.
Im just glad i run my own unit file.

LordTyrantFTW
Sergeant
Posts: 11
Joined: Nov 14 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#6 Post by LordTyrantFTW » Nov 16 2017

Only witnessed a stacked hex a couple of times? Lucky guy! Thank you for the further insight, my friend!

The AI's behavior in war is to path everything to one hex. Observe a major conflict on any setting. There's no 10 unit limit on a hex, unfortunately. The human or AI player can literally place an unlimited number of units on any hex. The limit seems to fail or become moot when the unit has a target to shoot at, or if you entrench the unit. In this fashion, 10s ranging to 100s of units can and often do occupy a single hex.

I believe 7 units per hex is still too much, but it's a start, and is of utmost importance for balancing warfare in SRU. (Basically, you're still undermining inferior nations by a multiplier of 7 times the stat advantage, relative to the base difference in stats when you have a 7 unit limit. This might still be far too much.)

(edit; grammar, note to self, don't post via smartphone, hah!)

YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 600
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#7 Post by YoMomma » Nov 18 2017

It's very easy to lure the AI to somewhere else. Ai will send troops to hexes which get captured. Not a single hex. If you are passive and only fight in a single hex, yeah then they will send their entire army there.

It would be nice if we can mod the hard limit, but i dont think we can.
Im just glad i run my own unit file.

User avatar
Anthropoid
Colonel
Posts: 409
Joined: Dec 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#8 Post by Anthropoid » Mar 03 2018

This is an interesting thread which I discovered in doing a search on "stacking." I cannot say I know the underlying game mechanics well enough to confirm the observed mathematical model. What I will say is: my gameplay observations confirm the model described. So in sum, I tend to agree with the overall point and as far as I can tell, each of the sub-points you are making OP.

With that said: there is another problem which I as a "realism" fetishist observe.

I just watched this video on Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As5xJt7NaJ8

Not to say this is an authoritative source, it is obviously an allied propaganda piece from ca. 1943 mean to drum up war spirit . . . but, it provides quick reference for scale. Jump to 19:30 and observe the diagrams it provides showing the distribution of French forces in preparation for the German attack. In particular 20:08. The French had 78 divisions along the border with Belgium between the channel and the northeastern edge of the Maginot. The standard size of a division is 10,000 to 30,000 soldiers, with 14,000 to 15,000 being a very common "central value" in WWII.

Now if that video is correct, it means the French had 14,000 x 78 soldiers placed in the gap between the Maginot and the Channel along the Belgian border in spring 1940 (1,092,000 soldiers, or if we use the smaller ~10,000 average value for a division size ~780,000 . . . total CASUALTIES among the allies in battle of France is listed as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
2,260,000 so the number of 1,092,000 for the total size of the French 1st Army seems reasonable.

In game that is a distance of 18 hexes. 78 /18 = 4.333. Which means: in order to fit the actual size of the French forces in that space, there would need to be one of the following:

1. 4.33 x (appoximately) 14,000 soldiers per hex (60,620 per hex), or
2. ~2 x 14,000 soldiers per hex but with a two to three hexes "deep" by 18 hexes long (30,310 per hex)
3, etc. correspondingly fewer soldiers per hex but with a front more hexes "deep" by 18 hexes long.

The "personnel" listed for various "units" in the game varies quite a bit. But just a quick peek at the units in reserve in a fresh Germany 1936 start reveals: around 640 for infantry (foot or mounted) and 1260 for Pioneers. As we all know, a Division does not consist entirely of only infantry and the "support units" (artillery, at, aa, etc.) tend to have smaller personnel counts.

Obviously something is amiss here. Even if we pile in one of the most populace of land units and put 7 Pioneer battalions (either largish battalions or under-sized regiments/brigades, I'm not certain), we can only get to 7 * 1260 = 8860 soldiers per hex, which is enough to constitute an "under strength" division but not the upper end for a divisions size.

With a hard stacking limit of 7 and assuming 8860 as a not unrepresentative upper limit for numbers of soldiers in 7 units, and working from our number of 1,092,000 total soldiers in the French First Army (10 British divisions were sandwiched in there somewhere too, so this is actually an underestimate): 1,092,000 / 8860 = 123.25

Assuming a stacking limit of 7 "units" per hex and a maximum personnel count per unit of 1260, the actual "First French Army" would have taken up ~124 hexes. 124 / 18 = 6.89. So the First French Army would have needed to be piled along northern France consistently for 6+ rows of 18 hexes long. The distance from Paris to the border is 11 hexes so in effect what this means is: with a 7 "unit" stacking limit and assuming a First French Army of ~1.092 million, half of the space between France and Belgium should be stacked full of French units. I don't believe this density of soldiers reflects actual history very well at all.

I don't want to say I'm fully convinced, but I believe that this game is not accurately representing the actual concentrations of soldiers per unit of space in the game, which would mean that rather than a hard-limit of "7 units" the actual stacking limit should perhaps be more like . . . well, I'm not sure. How many guys can fit into a area that is 16km across and still function as an effective fighting force?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... ttlefield/
A battalion occupying a defense area on the main line of resistance will usually be assigned a frontage of 1,000 to 2,000 yards, depending on the defensive strength of the terrain. When a battalion occupies a vital area having poor observation and poor fields of fire, such as in heavily wooded, broken terrain, the frontage should not exceed 1,000 yards. When the area is more open and affords longer fields of fire, a frontage of 1,500 to 2,000 yards may be appropriate. Exceptionally, when obstacles in front of the position, such as swamps or streams, make a strong attack against an area improbable, a frontage not exceeding 3,500 yards may be assigned.
Also
Just to add on, in the Pacific, sometimes things got incredibly compact. During the fighting around Shuri Castle on Okinawa, battalion frontage for the USMC got down below 600 yards. High density trench warfare in WWI was generally around 800 yards, so at Shuri it was exceptionally dense.

This comes from William Manchester's Goodbye Darkness.
A "battalion" is typically in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battalion 300 to 800 soldiers ball park, so a "high density" is one in which the frontage for a unit is about equivalent to one soldier per meter (1 yard = 0.944 meters), and a more "normal" frontage is 1.875 meters of frontage per soldier, to a maximum diffuse end of 4.375 meters per soldier.

Referring back to our 18x16km distance from Maginot to the channel 288km = 288,000 meters. So a very sparse coverage of this front would be 288,000 / 4.375 = 65,828.6 soldiers. This number of soldiers divided by 18 hexes gives us 3657 soldiers per hex.

So according to real life military doctrine (as quoted on a Reddit sub-forums! :P ), and given that units in this game vary from ~240 to ~1260 soldiers in size, "7 units" is, or probably SHOULD BE about the absolutely bare MINIMUM number of units to effectively control a hex, much less the absolute max possible in a hex. If we work with the "large" unit like Pioneers than 3 units * 1260 = 3780 is about enough to control a hex. But for the "640 personnel" of infantry, it would take at least 5.71 "units" to effectively control a hex using the exceptional reference in the quote above
Exceptionally, when obstacles in front of the position, such as swamps or streams, make a strong attack against an area improbable, a frontage not exceeding 3,500 yards may be assigned.
If we assume that "stacking limits" must reflect a limitation in which ONLY one "row" of soldiers can fit into a hex then 16,000 soldiers per hex would be a "maximum," which would translate into something like 13 to 25 "units" per hex given the range of 640 soldiers for infantry and 1260 for pioneers.

However the fact that hexes are two dimensional means that it should be possible for multiple times this number of soldiers to operate within a hex without resulting in hindrance. Whether that would be 3, 5 or 7 times "13 to 25 units per hex" (stacking limits of 39 to 75; 65 to 125; or 91 to 175 units per hex) I cannot say.

If we know how "deep" the ~1,092,000 soldiers of the First French Army were arranged along the Belgian border as they waited for the end of the Sitzkrieg we could probably say with some certainty what a reasonable "maximum" stacking limit should be--in order to reflect reality, which may be completely out of bounds if the goal is good gameplay.

If we assume that there were 1,092,000 French soldiers (78 divisions) lined up shoulder to shoulder, then 1,092,000 meters per soldier / 1000 would allow that many soldiers to cover 1092 km of frontage. This leads to the obvious implication that, assuming the sources I'm using are accurate and I haven't made a math error (which is quite possible at this time of night) then those 78 divisions were not arranged in a single line of soldiers shoulder to shoulder.

If we use the "intermediate" value of 1.875 meters of frontage covered per soldier in a unit, then 1,092,000 / 1.875 = 58,2400 meters or 582.4 km of coverage. This suggests that the French First Army was probably arranged with half or more of its reserve or support troops some distance behind the immediate front. Given that a single row of eighteen 16km wide hexes is both 288,000 meters long and 16,000 meters "deep" that gives us a rough cubic volume of 460,800,000 m^2 give would given each of each of the 1,092,000 soldiers about 4219 m^2 of space EACH, or a square of about 64.95 m on each side for EACH soldier.

Clearly, there is plenty of space for ~78 divisions numbering some 1,092,000 soldiers to fit in a 18 long row of hexes 1 hex deep (and 16km wide hexes). If we use this number as a "reasonable though not maximum troop density and translate it into game terms:

1,092,000 / 18 = 60,667 soldiers per hex In game terms, this would require 48.2 of the pioneer units (with 1260 soldiers) or 94 of the "infantry" units (with 640 soldiers).

evildari
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 240
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#9 Post by evildari » Mar 03 2018

you could easily mod those battalion strength levels to division numbers.
Then we finally have Supreme Ruler HD. (High Density)
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 87&t=26151 (MARSX1)

User avatar
Anthropoid
Colonel
Posts: 409
Joined: Dec 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#10 Post by Anthropoid » Mar 03 2018

evildari wrote:
Mar 03 2018
you could easily mod those battalion strength levels to division numbers.
Then we finally have Supreme Ruler HD. (High Density)
Yes I thought of that. Which then made me wonder . . . WHY does the game present "units" in the way in which it does?

I think it is abundantly clear that aspiring to as much historical accuracy and detail as possible was a defining goal of this entire series. They even say as much in the About Battlegoats page:
the team firmly believes that Strategy Gamers are looking for more sophisticated games that also remain fun to play. BattleGoat insists that their approach to development will always emphasize an accurate, heavily researched environment assuring players an entertaining and immersive gameplay experience.
AGREE!

But then why? . . .
(1) ridiculously low-density stacking limits relative to personnel counts for "units?"

(2) no actual reference to real-world hierarchical military structures? with the most potent "hunting-squad sized" group "FIre Team" as the indivisible foundation?. The fact that they took the time to assign "personnel counts" to so many varied units, AND the fact that they are generally fairly small (battalion, battery, squadron, sized it seems to me) all SUGGESTS that there was from a very early stage in game design an intent to implement something like a modular military organization model and yet . . . 10 or 15 years later and still no sign of such things?

These guys are sticklers for details, and while no one can get EVERYTHING perfectly correct in such a vast sweeping body of work (not to mention that some details are debatable) they clearly TRY to keep all their stuff as close to "reality" as possible . . .

But then right in the CORE of the game design we have a completely RIDICULOUS low-density of soldiers relative to the scale at which geography is represented.

The game(s) are fun and playable and wonderful and I definitely have got my money's worth from all of them. But I have to say, it is perennially perplexing to unravel the mysteries of this series and wonder, WHY?

User avatar
Anthropoid
Colonel
Posts: 409
Joined: Dec 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#11 Post by Anthropoid » Mar 05 2018

I wonder if there is anyway in the files that are external to the .exe to tweak the stacking limits so that something like "100" units was the limit?

I wonder what effect that would have on gameplay?

Obviously it would gunk up the UI pretty badly given it is not designed to deal with that many rows per tool tip, but beyond that, I wonder if the computer opponent could handle it properly and I wonder if it would make cities completely impregnable, which would seem to be the main downside . . .?

It WOULD seem to make sense that stacking limits are different considering the amount of "stuff" (buildings, other people, fountains, traffic lights, etc.) in a hex.

evildari
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 240
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#12 Post by evildari » Mar 08 2018

since area attacks damage all the units in a stack, this would counter-balance even a high unit stack..
not to mention:
one nuke to rule them all
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 87&t=26151 (MARSX1)

User avatar
Anthropoid
Colonel
Posts: 409
Joined: Dec 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Game Breakers? An Analysis of DEFCON and Land Unit Turn Times

#13 Post by Anthropoid » Mar 08 2018

evildari wrote:
Mar 08 2018
since area attacks damage all the units in a stack, this would counter-balance even a high unit stack..
not to mention:
one nuke to rule them all
Yeah. I figured the way the combat mechanic work more or less depend on small stack sizes.

Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”