SRNG suggestion for unit handling improvements

Have a feature request for SRU? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Uriens
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 516
Joined: Oct 05 2005

SRNG suggestion for unit handling improvements

Post by Uriens »

As mentioned in this thread improvements to unit handling would be good.

Here are some of my ideas i got while playing SR titles since SR 2010.

1. Unit upgrading would really be nice. From player side it would work a lot like you do now, select unit(s), choose upgrade order, select what the units would upgrade to from drop down menu and the units would go to nearest barracks WITH FACTORY, and get added to the build queue. System where unit gets scrapped and then an upgrade version gets added to the production menu is not good because you lose that specific unit with all accumulated experience. Upgraded units need to keep majority of experience since crews don't have to learn whole system, just the changes. Its not like you can upgrade bradleys to strikers or some other such nonsense.

2. Closely related to 1st idea, lots of newly developed vehicles (mostly but not limited to APC's) have been designed to be highly modular. That means that vehicle components can added/changed/removed in very short time to accommodate current situation and needs. Some are so modular that crews can make changes on the battlefield in about 30mins. Adding ability to do similar thing in game would make such systems more useful. One of the easiest ways to do this (that i can think of ATM) is to use similar system as upgrades i mentioned before where you would choose modify command and then choose one of the selected vehicles variants. Vehicle would go to nearest barracks (doesn't need factory for this) and go into reserve in highly damaged state and ofc as new variant.

3. Military organization could use a more then just a bunch of battalions running around map. Using battlegroups similar system where you select a group of battalions and add them to the brigade, select a couple of brigades to add them to division, etc. Hotspot system could also be used to assign designed military formation (for example division) to it. Specific formations could also request productions for units to get them to their full strength and replenish losses. This means that if division lost a number of infantry battalions, it would request a production of new INFANTRY units to replace losses. Military formations templates could possibly defined in the external .csv type of files for each region and AI would try to achieve them. This also means that AI would no longer need to make units in all the factories all the time. Factories would produce units that are requested by formations's AI, or those sent for upgrades or for creation of new formations. In idle times factories would be taken offline to save maintenance.
Creation of new formations would be decided based on current situation. If the region is at war or preparing for war, it would strongly consider creation of new formations (divisions, corpses, armies, depends on what a region can sustain). During peace time AI would only keep formations that it can maintain and disband excess formations while sending battalions from those formations back to reserve (mothballing them if you will). That way, AI won't bankrupt itself when at peace and game won't take too much resources.
Military units from specific formations would be tied to specific hotspots/orders of that formation so if a division has an order to defend specific battlezone, all units from that formation would be used for that purpose only. This OFC means that hotspots need to be created by AI "intelligently". Hotspots can be created by player as well, i guess in a similar fashion we have now with additional ability to assign specific formation to that hotspot. For example, if i want division to attack specific battlezone i would create hotspot in that battlezone, assign division to that hotspot and AI would try to take control of all important locations in that battlezone.
Pellegro
Corporal
Posts: 2
Joined: May 28 2020
Human: Yes

Re: SRNG suggestion for unit handling improvements

Post by Pellegro »

I’m relatively new to this game but the unit handling need serious work. I really like the scale and sandbox so far but the inability to organize units into tiered oobs is maddening, especially given the scale and number of units at issue.

I would really love to see a unit design tool added that would permit divisions and armies and corps to be more easily designed, built, deployed, named, Reserved, scrapped, and controlled. The UI as a whole could use some love in this respect.

Plus, it’s fun. All us wargaming nerds love tweaking our organizations and such. It’s why I still enjoy hoi3.
Rosalis
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 213
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

Re: SRNG suggestion for unit handling improvements

Post by Rosalis »

A system where you can merge units together sounds very good. And very resource intensive for the programming team to get right for the AI, but maybe needed to sell the game to more people. A system where missiles are removed and stats are being add to other units, i dont like that. And thats what they are doing for the space game i think. So my advise is not do it for SRNG.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20504
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: SRNG suggestion for unit handling improvements

Post by Balthagor »

Rosalis wrote:
May 30 2020
... A system where missiles are removed and stats are being add to other units, i dont like that. And thats what they are doing for the space game i think. So my advise is not do it for SRNG.
Currently missiles are not planned for GR, but the intention is that they remain for SRNG.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1973
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: SRNG suggestion for unit handling improvements

Post by SGTscuba »

Balthagor wrote:
May 30 2020
Rosalis wrote:
May 30 2020
... A system where missiles are removed and stats are being add to other units, i dont like that. And thats what they are doing for the space game i think. So my advise is not do it for SRNG.
Currently missiles are not planned for GR, but the intention is that they remain for SRNG.
This is good to hear as I can't see a workable system for long range missiles otherwise.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
CertainDeath
Sergeant
Posts: 15
Joined: Jul 18 2020
Human: Yes

Re: SRNG suggestion for unit handling improvements

Post by CertainDeath »

I would love changes here too.
Personally i would sum up all the suggestions with a new approach.

Make Military Units what they are -> Administrative Units (Formations).
So you can give each Unit (Formation) one or more roles (Specialisations) and assign them equipment.

The main controllable Formation could be the Brigade. What role your Brigade fullfills is up to you, you can add in Battalions and Platoons with different Roles (specialisations) and different equipment. You do this with Brigade Designer, or let your defense minister do that for you. (Equipment should run in branches to make it easier to upgrade)

You can research new Formation roles (to add to existing units or make new units of it, f.e. you could research AA role, and attach it to infantry, and/or make a specialized aa unit) as you progress, but you also can research new equipment to modernize your existing role (Better guns or rockets for the AA role).
Some researches could even alter main stats of certain roles (f.e. automated trucks and/or drones could drastically lower the manpower needs of logistics role, while better trucks may "just" improve the logistics effectiveness of the logistics role).


I think when your basic controllabe unit is a brigade sized one, the overview and unit managment gets much more enjoyable, but you still can have the feeling of wide fronts and massive counts :)
You may have smaller sized brigades for special tasks (mobile LR AA f.e. would make no sense to attach theese to every inf unit), but your mainstay of a front will be the ~5000 personell brigade, investing lower manpower is possible but will degrade the units steadfastness.
It should be possible to equip the same "role" "specialisation" in different units with different branch types of equipment. f.e. an inf battalion gets a platoon with handheld sr-aa launchers equipped, while the aa brigade has several mobile LR-AA launchers, radar installations and its own logistics battalion.

When you add trucks to a basic infantry unit, its motorization level rises, giving it slight increases in mobility, but good improvments in supply refill rate, reinforce rate and some moral improvment at first. When motorization level reaches 100% the slight speed increase gets a huge increase close to slowest vehicles top speed (depending on terrain). Adding APC instead of truck is not as well for logistics values, but gives good buffs to armor values, assault values etc, and may be faster cross country.
Later if you reseach new APC, its no problem to swap old out in new unit design, but be aware! It will cost you military equipment and cash. Adding A few dozen APC to your special units may be done in half a year, but retrofitting a whole army to mechanized could last for years - depending on your budget and military equipment distribution settings.
User avatar
CertainDeath
Sergeant
Posts: 15
Joined: Jul 18 2020
Human: Yes

Re: SRNG suggestion for unit handling improvements

Post by CertainDeath »

On top of that i would add the suggestion i saw somewhere else.
It was about prolonging combat times.

with the new units, a single well equiped infantry brigade is a force to be reckoned with, you dont have to stack it somewhere with 6 others to defend a forest range or an mountain, it can do fine on its own (if the enemies number are not overwhelming).
If attacking f.e. a urban hex, it should be strong enough to overcome basic militia (with losses and up to several days to weeks of battle - depending on garrison size and their equipment and supply state), but in open field a inf batallion is very vulnerable to attacks from armored brigades, if you dont assist with fortification (a pionier platoon might help, it does not build as fast as a spezialized pionieer brigade, but its decent enough either to build up some cover, or blow up some enemy cover).

But Units should not be wiped so eazy, retreats should be the norm if a unit looeses a battle, cause in endeffect it stays a administrative unit - even after heavy losses (Mit dem Angriff Steiners wird das alles in Ordnung kommen.), something to assign real troops and equipment to.
it may have lowered combat strenght due to not fullfilled needs, you may even tactically retreat further to give troops a chance to reeinforce, but they only cease to exist if encircled or if the administrative unit gets deleted or merged (or its surrendering when very low on moral and supplies?)

So you end up not building new units from start to end of the game, with scrapping old units in between, but at some point you may find your brigade count decent (considering what your manpower can do for you), and only proceed to develope and replace units equipment (and personell if lost). Wars so get more attrition value, and units/research with little value before may get interesting side effects, if added to a brigade (f.e. SRNG motorcycles giving a good scouting value and some motorisation level to a brigade, while SRU motorbikes are of no use.

What should be thought through in such a setting is the role of military goods factories and unit production facilities. While military good factories may be needed to build supplies like ammunition and other stuff, the production facilities may not produce the brigades, but provide industrial capacity to build equipment for the brigades, where Military+Industrial Goods+Electricity+Workers+Budget create Equipment. How to muster the brigades is open, there are many ways. I think we may use barracks to train new units? They could come in tiers, so you cant train tank battallions or air regiments in basic barracks.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRU”