Resource Points Suggestion
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:51 pm
I had an idea last night to add a bit more strategy and simulate one of the realistic aspects of warfare. Have the resource points cost of repairing or upgrading a unit be tied to the distance the unit is from the front line. This would be a way to encourage the realistic practice of rotating units out of the frontline for repair. It takes more resources to bring replacements to units on the frontlines (and even one hex away from being in contact with the enemy is still the frontline).
It would lead to players having to make more decisions about whether to withdraw elite units so they could repair them more cheaply, or keep them up front and spend the extra points.
I think there are a few different ways this could be implemented into the game which would add some more strategy.
-Adjust the resource point cost of repair/upgrade by a percentage based on the distance from the nearest enemy controlled hex (up to a point, obviously). This would encourage the withdrawal of units to the rear for major repairs.
-Counteract some of the resource point cost for units at or near the frontline based on their entrenchment level. This would simulate the fact that it is easier to get replacements and supplies to static units in quiet sectors of the line.
-Have an adjustment to the resource points cost to repair/upgrade units based on their efficiency level. This would make it more expensive to repair or upgrade units which were devastated by attack and forced to retreat. Players should be encouraged to allow units to get "reorganized" before being able to resupply them. In reality, it's going to be harder to get supplies and replacements to a unit which has been scattered and disorganized by a retreat.
-A modifier for the resource points cost based on whether the unit attacked in the previous turn or not. This would simulate the desirability of pausing an offensive to let the supplies catch up.
-An adjustment to the resource point cost if there is enemy controlled hexes within a certain distance of the nearest supply hex. This would encourage "securing the supply lines" and diverting units to wipe out isolated pockets of resistance which lay along the supply lines. As it stands now, there's no penalty for leaving enemy units in the jungles in your rear areas. Even if those units are weak and unable to mount any sort of effective attack, we should still be penalized for the fact that they are out there, and simulate that resources need to guard the supplies.
Those are just my thoughts on ways to add a bit more complexity and strategic decision making to the game. I think it does the job of simulating some of the realistic requirements on a military commander without becoming overly tedious. Like in reality, you can always allocate the resources to make sure the supplies get through, but there should be some encouragement to the player not to have the same handful of units pounding home the attacks and simply getting replacements as they leapfrog back into the frontline. Obviously, any of these suggestions would work by itself without having to implement them all, but I like the idea of asking the player to do a bit more strategizing.
Chris
It would lead to players having to make more decisions about whether to withdraw elite units so they could repair them more cheaply, or keep them up front and spend the extra points.
I think there are a few different ways this could be implemented into the game which would add some more strategy.
-Adjust the resource point cost of repair/upgrade by a percentage based on the distance from the nearest enemy controlled hex (up to a point, obviously). This would encourage the withdrawal of units to the rear for major repairs.
-Counteract some of the resource point cost for units at or near the frontline based on their entrenchment level. This would simulate the fact that it is easier to get replacements and supplies to static units in quiet sectors of the line.
-Have an adjustment to the resource points cost to repair/upgrade units based on their efficiency level. This would make it more expensive to repair or upgrade units which were devastated by attack and forced to retreat. Players should be encouraged to allow units to get "reorganized" before being able to resupply them. In reality, it's going to be harder to get supplies and replacements to a unit which has been scattered and disorganized by a retreat.
-A modifier for the resource points cost based on whether the unit attacked in the previous turn or not. This would simulate the desirability of pausing an offensive to let the supplies catch up.
-An adjustment to the resource point cost if there is enemy controlled hexes within a certain distance of the nearest supply hex. This would encourage "securing the supply lines" and diverting units to wipe out isolated pockets of resistance which lay along the supply lines. As it stands now, there's no penalty for leaving enemy units in the jungles in your rear areas. Even if those units are weak and unable to mount any sort of effective attack, we should still be penalized for the fact that they are out there, and simulate that resources need to guard the supplies.
Those are just my thoughts on ways to add a bit more complexity and strategic decision making to the game. I think it does the job of simulating some of the realistic requirements on a military commander without becoming overly tedious. Like in reality, you can always allocate the resources to make sure the supplies get through, but there should be some encouragement to the player not to have the same handful of units pounding home the attacks and simply getting replacements as they leapfrog back into the frontline. Obviously, any of these suggestions would work by itself without having to implement them all, but I like the idea of asking the player to do a bit more strategizing.
Chris