A Flaw in the OOB System

[w_michael]

There are a couple of flaws in the game system that I discovered and exploited in my most recent MP game.  I was playing the Karjalan Kesa scenario and the main German objectives were the two Soviet HQ cities in the SE, so that was my primary thrust. As I made a close approach I stopped killing Soviet units in the west.  We both seemed to have enough Resource Points, so Command Points were the restricting factor.  If I killed a unit then my opponent would just rebuild it.  The flaw is that not only can you immediately rebuild a killed unit, but you can change the unit type and build it anywhere on the map.  I didn't want the Soviet HQ region receiving reinforcements, so I didn't kill their units outside of that region.  Conversely, if I was holding my own in the west then I could let them kill a unit, only to raise a new unit of the most convenient type in the Soviet HQ region. My opponent was apparently unaware of this "feature" and he kept killing units in the west, only to have me reinforce the east.

I don't see how my opponent and I can have a gentleman's agreement to stop this unrealistic exploit. I suggest that the designers add a 4-turn delay when Command Points that are destroyed and become available.  Alternately, after the game starts it takes 4 turns before a purchased unit can be deployed. Perhaps, additionally the unit type should be "sticky" so that a lost infantry CP can only be replaced by another infantry CP, a tank by another tank, etc. That might help.  What do you think?

[Shards]

There's been discussion around this over in the Multiplayer subforum.

It's something I want to address in the medium term, but I want to be careful not to upset the single player campaign balance.

For now, I've been adjusting the maps that we use for the tournaments to reduce the available deployment zones around the centre of the maps. E.g. if you play Karjalan Kesä [Tournament Settings] you'll only be able to redeploy behind the lines, not on the victory locations themselves.

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback

[Horst]

To avoid such teleporting deployment, map designers should not place flags on settlements and airfields in the middle of a map or along dedicated front lines. Flags on Hill 123 or a deco-camp should work fine enough. Airfields within own territory without flag can also be used for own planes but not for new deployments.
With only one HQ and airfield on a map's edge with several railroad connections to the front lines, you can create a pretty and plausible redeployment system. The possibilities are there, you only need to use them.

[Erik2]

On a side note.
I'm all for removing flags on the map. But I also really like location names and the flags are mandatory for this to work.
So I vote for displaying location names wether there is a flag present or not.

[GabeKnight]

I guess some 1-2 turn "cool-down" for replacing lost core units (CP-slots) wouldn't break no vanilla campaign.

As for removing flags, for one there's the naming issue as Erik stated, but there's also the 3-turn hex-ownership (supply) rule that would be circumvented. Don't know about that...

[kondi754]

3-turn hex-ownership rule is VEEEEEEEEEEEEEERY IMPORTANT , so I support Gabe

[w_michael]

Thanks for the replies. You could satisfy the solitaire game balance issue by adding a slider to the Options/Preferences menu setting the number of turns delay before lost Command Points become available again, starting at the current level of zero. Players will find the number suitable to their skill level. The same could be added when setting up a multi-player challenge. Of course, my suggestion of delaying CP replacements may not be best solution, but the sliders would allow an earlier rollout of a fix that players would have the option to use or ignore.

[w_michael]

We've played the Karjalan Kesa scenario twice, and we have just started the "tournament" version. It is a big improvement. Thanks.