Slitherine

I´m thinking about the conditions for unit replacement. The rules are really simplified by now. The terms should be changed so you can only replace elite units if the unit is placed in or beside a city or any other special supply giver (airports, streets, rails etc.). To replace units in the middle of nowhere with trained soldiers is to easy for the attacker. I don´t know how this would affect the later gameplay but there is no real penalty for losing units in an advanced battle.

What do you think?

I'm still not sure about my opinion. I see your point and will keep a mental note while playing. I think they can drop the replacements anywhere in reality but for infantry units it seems more likely to use a city or some place at least connected to a road or rail hex.

Hmm if a unit can be supplied with food / medcine / ammo and fuel ... it can be also supplied with trained soldiers!
The cargo truck doesnt matter what to deliver

No, this idea seems un-KISS and doesn't seem to enhance gameplay. It's probably good to keep the number of hidden rules to a minimum.

The KISS principle depends on how rules are communicated. If a player attempts to reinforce a unit with elite replacements in a situation where the rules do not allow, you can always present a message (popup or otherwise) indicating that function is not allowed unless the unit is stationed near a base, city, or whatever the rule states. Consistency and clarity go a long way in the application of KISS. When the application of rules seems inconsistant or lacks clarity all bets are off.

Steakenglisch wrote:Hmm if a unit can be supplied with food / medcine / ammo and fuel ... it can be also supplied with trained soldiers!
The cargo truck doesnt matter what to deliver

Errrh yes but if the supply truck doesn´t have a road it needs more time to get to the unit and to simulate this case it would make sense to reduce the amount of possible replacements. Maybe you misunderstood my intention^^ This was just an idea to "simulate" a special condition. To raise the challenge if you want it this way. It´s clear that you have to replace your units so you can´t just disable the reinforce option but eventually you could do this for the elite option.

Xitax wrote:No, this idea seems un-KISS and doesn't seem to enhance gameplay. It's probably good to keep the number of hidden rules to a minimum.

Ok... so the reduced amount of reinforcements you´ll get if your unit stands beside an enemy unit, which case we have in the current version, is un-KISS, too? And to stretch the rule so it MUST stay free AND on or beside a road to get the full amount of reinforcements is un-KISS, too? Just a thought. Think about what KISS is about actually We already have hidden rules about reinforcements so it would not be a problem.

The crux of the question is: how would limiting elite reinforcements (just elite reinforcements and not regular reinforcements) to units on or near cities enhance gameplay? Or is KISS? I'm open to being convinced, but I don't see the advantage at first glance.

And secondly how does this make sense in a real-world context? If I can get regulars to my units then how would it be harder to ship experienced soldiers to the same unit? Do they weigh more? Lol If experienced trainees are available in a city it would be trivial to ship them anywhere where supply routes are open.

"Ok... so the reduced amount of reinforcements you´ll get if your unit stands beside an enemy unit, which case we have in the current version, is un-KISS, too? And to stretch the rule so it MUST stay free AND on or beside a road to get the full amount of reinforcements is un-KISS, too? Just a thought. Think about what KISS is about actually We already have hidden rules about reinforcements so it would not be a problem."
--Having supply limitations when next to enemy units is KISS and perfectly reasonable. I am not arguing that point at all. But when you extend the rule to limit reinforcements to when they are near a road or city does in fact complicate matters. Imagine that such a rule is implemented, there could possibly be quite a few levels of supply which can be tedious for the player to track. Let me take it to the extreme here. Suppose:
1. full supply: Unit is in city that produces supply.
2. good supply: unit is on road/rail within X arbitrary units of city that produces supply
3. fair supply: unit is on road/rail farther than X units of city that produces supply
4. restricted supply: unit is not on road/rail or city, or unit is in contact with 1 enemy unit
5. poor supply: unit is near 1 enemy unit, but not on road/rail
6. very poor supply: unit is "surrounded" defined by being in contact with some number (3 perhaps) enemy units
7. no supply: unit is cut off, in a pocket or some such situation where any amount of supply is impossible. Paratroopers landed behind enemy lines perhaps as an example.
--So you see how quickly this can escalate into a complicated set of rules? Now with the above system of rules you now have to track whether the unit has a path back to a supply base and how good that supply route is. In my opinion it's definitely beyond the desirable scope of this kind of game as operational systems such as supply are more abstracted in favor of tactical gameplay.
--So what I suggest is that the same rules apply to all reinforcements and supplies based on the following simple rules:
1. full supply: unit is not in contact with enemy
2. partial supply: unit is in contact with 1-2 enemies
3. no supply: unit is in contact with 3 or more enemies.

"The KISS principle depends on how rules are communicated. If a player attempts to reinforce a unit with elite replacements in a situation where the rules do not allow, you can always present a message (popup or otherwise) indicating that function is not allowed unless the unit is stationed near a base, city, or whatever the rule states. Consistency and clarity go a long way in the application of KISS. When the application of rules seems inconsistant or lacks clarity all bets are off."
--Agreed, totally.

That's what I'm trying to get across.

Xitax wrote:The crux of the question is: how would limiting elite reinforcements (just elite reinforcements and not regular reinforcements) to units on or near cities enhance gameplay? Or is KISS? I'm open to being convinced, but I don't see the advantage at first glance.

And secondly how does this make sense in a real-world context? If I can get regulars to my units then how would it be harder to ship experienced soldiers to the same unit? Do they weigh more? Lol If experienced trainees are available in a city it would be trivial to ship them anywhere where supply routes are open.

"Ok... so the reduced amount of reinforcements you´ll get if your unit stands beside an enemy unit, which case we have in the current version, is un-KISS, too? And to stretch the rule so it MUST stay free AND on or beside a road to get the full amount of reinforcements is un-KISS, too? Just a thought. Think about what KISS is about actually We already have hidden rules about reinforcements so it would not be a problem."
--Having supply limitations when next to enemy units is KISS and perfectly reasonable. I am not arguing that point at all. But when you extend the rule to limit reinforcements to when they are near a road or city does in fact complicate matters. Imagine that such a rule is implemented, there could possibly be quite a few levels of supply which can be tedious for the player to track. Let me take it to the extreme here. Suppose:
1. full supply: Unit is in city that produces supply.
2. good supply: unit is on road/rail within X arbitrary units of city that produces supply
3. fair supply: unit is on road/rail farther than X units of city that produces supply
4. restricted supply: unit is not on road/rail or city, or unit is in contact with 1 enemy unit
5. poor supply: unit is near 1 enemy unit, but not on road/rail
6. very poor supply: unit is "surrounded" defined by being in contact with some number (3 perhaps) enemy units
7. no supply: unit is cut off, in a pocket or some such situation where any amount of supply is impossible. Paratroopers landed behind enemy lines perhaps as an example.
--So you see how quickly this can escalate into a complicated set of rules? Now with the above system of rules you now have to track whether the unit has a path back to a supply base and how good that supply route is. In my opinion it's definitely beyond the desirable scope of this kind of game as operational systems such as supply are more abstracted in favor of tactical gameplay.
--So what I suggest is that the same rules apply to all reinforcements and supplies based on the following simple rules:
1. full supply: unit is not in contact with enemy
2. partial supply: unit is in contact with 1-2 enemies
3. no supply: unit is in contact with 3 or more enemies.

"The KISS principle depends on how rules are communicated. If a player attempts to reinforce a unit with elite replacements in a situation where the rules do not allow, you can always present a message (popup or otherwise) indicating that function is not allowed unless the unit is stationed near a base, city, or whatever the rule states. Consistency and clarity go a long way in the application of KISS. When the application of rules seems inconsistant or lacks clarity all bets are off."
--Agreed, totally.

That's what I'm trying to get across.

Ok so let´s talk about that First of all, my intention was to find a way to LIMIT the availibility of "Elite Soldiers" not to reinvent or implement a new supply system because the current system forgives to easily when you risk your hard earned elite forces, just replace them in the next round. Trained soldiers should be your backbone... not your dummy^^ So actually it wasn´t my idea to make the rules more complicate. I was searching for a way to raise the awareness about your own troops that´s "KISS"-like.
Next thing is the talk about the weight of your troops or kind of supply on the trucks. I really REALLY hope that you two (xitax and steakenglish) understood that I tried to SIMULATE the limited availibility of the elite force. It actually has nothing to do if there is a street or a city or if the supply truck actually can reach his target or what´s in the back of the supply truck.
It should cost you more time to replace your elite soldiers, not only more prestige. Simple as that^^

@xitax: What actually are game enhancements? PC is a tactical game, so you should think twice about what you do with your elite troops! If you don´t take care of them you´ll probably loose them. It would be a great game enhancement if you ask me, because the strategical thinking would go far deeper (or just ignore the fact, that replacing elite troops would cost more time and just lose them). A supply system should be kiss yes. I generally support the idea of kiss but to use "KISS" as an all time reason for NOT making a game challenging... Nope.

Conclusion: There shouldn´t be 1000 supply rules for 1000 different situations just TWO. As simple as that. Two things a required for full elite replacements and full supply: No enemy unit and a street in adjacent field.
BTW: We have the same situation for movement. Enemys and streets a the only two requirements/restrictions for the unit movement, why not for supply? Supply is based directly on the capability of movement.

"...that I tried to SIMULATE the limited availibility of the elite force..." Yes, I understand that and that's a good thing, but for simplicity's sake that inequality of availability of anything the game needs you to 'purchase' has been abstracted to a common currency, e.g. "prestige." Either limiting the supply through prestige costs or any other factor it very much comes to the same thing, so I think what you wanted might be able to be done by better balancing prestige. -Unless what you'd like to do can't be done with prestige costs... Game design-wise, it would probably be better to have one function that does everything rather than two functions that overlap in scope quite a bit.

The devs have posted somewhere in this forum that the current beta needs prestige balancing in that there is too much available to the player right now. So maybe you'll find it more to your liking when the prestige levels are balanced?

"What actually are game enhancements? PC is a tactical game, so you should think twice about what you do with your elite troops! If you don´t take care of them you´ll probably loose them. It would be a great game enhancement if you ask me, because the strategical thinking would go far deeper (or just ignore the fact, that replacing elite troops would cost more time and just lose them). A supply system should be kiss yes. I generally support the idea of kiss but to use "KISS" as an all time reason for NOT making a game challenging... Nope. " - if I understand you (and I'm not sure I do), your point is that you feel elite troops aren't scarce enough. And I wasn't arguing that KISS is a means to its own end - it's a means to keep the game rules at a certain level while still accomplishing a fun and challenging game. Complication of the rules should only be done if it enhances the game experience. Chess is a good example of simple rules and complex interactions; chess doesn't need more rules to be either interesting or challenging. Chess has the right number of rules. I'm pretty much saying that that's how I feel about Panzer Corps right now.

"Enemys and streets a the only two requirements/restrictions for the unit movement, why not for supply? Supply is based directly on the capability of movement." That's a good point. Implementing that rule would be a change from the present game in that - all is the same except that a unit away from a road/rail/city would not get full supply and it does get full supply now. I also agree that both supply and reinforcements make sense to use the same rule. Could a developer pop in here and weigh in on this idea?

Anyway, I'll shut up now - I think I've said what I wanted to say...

I think the idea of 'elite' reinforcements during a battle doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes more sense to allow 'elite' replacements between campaign battles. This would pose the player with interesting strategic decisions while playing the battle. Hmm, do I take my elite force into every firefight possible or do I utilize them in key positions for tactical advantage or to hold/take a critical VP location? If you whittle your elite troops during the battle you either withdraw them from harm for the duration of the battle until they can rest & refit or you call in reinforcements during the battle at the cost of potentially losing your elite or veteran status. I love the idea of allowing the player to think and plan with interesting outcomes rather than simply allowing a blunt force that can always be easily replaced with enough money or points.

We considered removing elite replacements during battle, but concluded that it would be bad for gameplay. Many people prefer to give their units elite replacements only, and this rule would force them to get more and more troops out of the battle as scenario progresses. In the end you would have few units fighting, while other would sit behind and do nothing. It is not much fun - people like to see their favorite units in action. So instead we implemented a softer approach - elite replacements in battle are possible but more expensive than between scenarios. Also, green replacement still cost you some in the middle of a scen, while between scens they are free.

However, if anyone wants to play without elite replacements during battle, he can modify gamerules.pzdat file and assign a prohibitevely high cost for elite replacements during battle, which will mean they won't be possible any more.

Thanks for the reply, I didn't realize green replacements were free between battles (haven't used them). I also think the option of modifying the values works for those who want to try a different approach rather than working it into the released game. The primary focus should be that the game is enjoyable to play (and moddable!); realism should take a back seat to gameplay every time.