City changes

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • City changes

      I've seen the new update, and am aware of the changes, but I'm proposing some other changes:

      Multiple territories for each city: Real battles for cities are generally a long, drawn out, hard fought battle if the opposing forces are around the same strength. In this game, you get into the middle of the city and just begin fighting until they win or lose the whole city at once. Fighting happens in more than the center of the city, especially if they're large. Tokyo can't just fall with one battle in the city center.
      The VPs for the cities would be spread out, although the city center would still have the majority of VPs. Insurgents can pop up in one part and spread through the rest, but have a somewhat smaller likelihood of insurgents.

      Smaller stacks: The update features slower movement in cities, but I would like to go one step further and put an effectiveness change. Also because of the dense terrain, larger amount of troops cannot all fight. I think effectiveness can start going down with 4 or so units in a stack, but only in cities.

      Lastly, this is not for cities, but VPs. I think 1000 VPs for 26 player maps and 1250 for 45 player maps is too low. I think it should either be fluid again, or set a higher number (maybe 1100/1400).
    • The first two suggestions don't sound the best, don't really want to try make the game harder. I think there is a lot of provinces already and quite often they are hard to see. I don't think cities should be divided up, just gives us more travel time and harder assaults.

      As well as that, how would building work? Or when troops come in via an airlift? Dividing up the cities just creates a lot of problems, chiefly the buildings. I don't want to have face an opponent who can make 5 units from one city, even if I can as well.

      As for the lose of effectiveness for larger stacks, I don't think that is good. If there is one thing a commander will always ask for, it's more troops. Sure, large stacks do give rise to larger logistical problems in real life, but the larger numbers are more combat effective. Even going back into the old style of line battles, whether it be muskets or pikes, more troops always gives you an edge. This is because if you lose one soldier, another can immediately come up to take their place.

      Imagine this in a city battle(e.g. Stalingrad). You've got 2 regiments moving through the city. They are going to be constantly taking casualties because they have to check every street, every building, every room. With you're two regiments, you have to concentrate your troops due to their small numbers, and because there is so few of them they cannot clear many buildings daily. You also have to leave troops behind for security, because it is a war zone and you do not want an insurgency popping up behind front lines in the middle of a city.

      Now imagine instead of 2 regiments, you have 10. That's five times as many. With this number, you can spread your troops out more, clear more buildings daily, and the security behind the front lines can be handle since you have enough men to do so. So having more troops attacking a city should provide a boost to unit strength if anything, not reduce it.



      A man finds an old lamp and rubs it. Out comes a genie that says, “Thank you for freeing me. Would you like to be a Hero of the Soviet Union?”
      The man says yes, and poof! He then finds himself in Stalingrad in 1942, facing five tanks alone and armed with only three grenades.
    • I admit I have not addressed every issue, and I will now.

      Cities are typically tough battlegrounds, and this can be simulated by multiple territories inside a city. Honestly, I don't know how you might be able to see the other parts of the city. Maybe you can only click on the center, but from there you can choose if you actually want to go to suburb 1, suburb 2, and so on.

      Building would be in the city center, and the rest of the city might be able to build FOBs and maybe even bunkers. So you wouldn't have an enemy that produces 5 units/city/day. Troops can come anywhere in the city for an airlift, although the airbase would only be in the city center.

      If the first suggestion is implemented, then 3 units can be in the city center, while another 3 are in each suburb. And remember, the defender also suffers the penalty.
      This is only to simulate the dense terrain. If it's open terrain, of course this wouldn't happen. But with the dense terrain, then units might not reach peak efficiency due to the close combat and generally smaller battleground. This would especially be true with tanks, which would have efficiency problems due to movement problems.
      The unit groups larger than 3 would still be stronger, they just take an effectiveness penalty.

      I know about the small forces in this game (1 unit is a battalion), but you can only have so much. that would make 2 regiments pretty powerful, and 10 would be too much for a city. With fewer units in the cities to clear, the less troops you have to send.

      I'm sure there's more issues I haven't addressed yet. And keep the feedback on this topic continuing.
    • B-17 wrote:

      I know about the small forces in this game (1 unit is a battalion), but you can only have so much. that would make 2 regiments pretty powerful, and 10 would be too much for a city. With fewer units in the cities to clear, the less troops you have to send.
      The Battle of Stalingrad started with a little under 500,000 men and ended with over 2 million, with over 2 million casualties(casualties being both injuries and deaths). Battles in cities can get fairly large. Granted, Stalingrad was a truly massive battle, but the Second Battle of Fallujah had a little under 18,000 men involved, with ~13,500 0f those soldiers being in the attacking force.

      The Second Battle of Fallujah also proves what I said about not having enough troops for, or a lack of, security; lack of troops let all the insurgent troops build up in the city.

      B-17 wrote:

      This is only to simulate the dense terrain. If it's open terrain, of course this wouldn't happen.
      Then it is more a question of should more provinces be added in general? Looking at Africa on the game map is a good example of this point I am about to make. When you look at the map, the countries with these "denser" areas, being cities, jungles, and mountains, are playable countries with lots of provinces. Others, like Chad, are made up of massive desert provinces. So looking at the map, you must ask, are these smaller, outer provinces already implemented to add more provinces to player nations, and the devs just didn't want to give them to cities?

      B-17 wrote:

      Building would be in the city center, and the rest of the city might be able to build FOBs and maybe even bunkers. So you wouldn't have an enemy that produces 5 units/city/day. Troops can come anywhere in the city for an airlift, although the airbase would only be in the city center.
      That sounds pretty good, I like the idea of being able to heavily fortify the cities suburbs. Like Moscow in 1941, or Leningrad, or Stalingrad, or any other large city involved in a major battle.



      A man finds an old lamp and rubs it. Out comes a genie that says, “Thank you for freeing me. Would you like to be a Hero of the Soviet Union?”
      The man says yes, and poof! He then finds himself in Stalingrad in 1942, facing five tanks alone and armed with only three grenades.
    • The battle of Stalingrad was big, but keep in mind that it was the vicinity of the city as well, and much of the casualties sustained by Axis forces was capitulation, both inside and outside the city.
      The second battle of Fallujah had a terrorist element to it, unlike most fighting in the game. I would use a different, but post-WWII, example, like the battle of Hue in the Vietnam war. There are plenty of WWII examples out there, but being over 70 years ago, they aren't as accurate for modern warfare as wars afterwards.
      The game doesn't want AI countries to be too big, in terms of provinces, which I believe is the reason for the terrain in Africa.
    • B-17 wrote:

      There are plenty of WWII examples out there, but being over 70 years ago, they aren't as accurate for modern warfare as wars afterwards.
      I was thinking exactly that, which is why I mentioned Fallujah. WWII is my area of expertise, so it is generally the first thing that comes to my mind.

      B-17 wrote:

      I would use a different, but post-WWII, example, like the battle of Hue in the Vietnam war.
      Good example, 25 battalions involved. The Battle of Baghdad in 2003 had ~75,000 men involved, though it did only last 9 days.

      An interesting one to take a look at may be the Battle of Grozny in the Second Chechen War. It is worth noting though that this is the Russian armed forces fighting Chechen militia. A pity all modern battles are basically modern forces kicking around bands of men armed with small arms.

      TL;DR against dug-in militiamen numbers seem to make a difference.


      Heavily outnumbered Chechens, around 3-6,000 versus a siege and assault by ~52,000 pro-Russian forces.The city of Grozny is declared cut off on December 4, 1999. Russian forces subject the city to heavy barrage, using artillery, missiles, and airstrikes. During this time Chechen militia turns Grozny into a fortress. Assault on city suburbs is slow due to traps and stiff resistance. Chemical weapons used by both sides.

      Aerial bombardment changes to dropping of leaflets on December 5, 1999, urging residents to leave by December 11. "Safe Corridor" made for residents to leave. Bombardment is continued on the rest of the city. January 10, 2000, Chechen forces launch counter-offensive and open supply corridor to the city. By mid-January Russian forces advance on city from 3 directions. On the last day of January and the first of February, rebel forces flee the city. Russian forces begin mop up on February 3, 2000, and Grozny descends into an insurgency.

      What can we take from this? That 52,000 Russian soldiers took around half a month(mid-January to February 3, 2000) to capture a city that has been heavily fortified and is host to 3-6,000 militiamen with mostly small arms. One could say that it shows how the large amount of Russian forces apparently did not aid the taking of the city, which should have been much faster given the numbers and seeming combat effectiveness of the Russian and Chechen forces.

      When you compare it a similar battle though, the Second Battle of Fallujah, which is similar due to the tactics of both forces, the advance of 52,000 Russian forces into the city and beginning of mop up took only half a month for a dug-in opponent in a brutal do-or-die last stand fight in dug in positions versus a month and two weeks for 13,500 US/Iraqi/UK forces in Fallujah against militiamen in a standard city.

      To see how much of an effect all the Russian troops had versus if they only had the numbers the US coalition used in Fallujah, I think you should read about the fighting in Grozny on Wikipedia -> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%932000)



      A man finds an old lamp and rubs it. Out comes a genie that says, “Thank you for freeing me. Would you like to be a Hero of the Soviet Union?”
      The man says yes, and poof! He then finds himself in Stalingrad in 1942, facing five tanks alone and armed with only three grenades.
    • I'm not completely sure of your intent in mentioning the battle of Grozny, it just seems to support my opinion. I'm not saying that's not the case, but it just seems unlikely that you would reverse your point of view in a couple of posts.

      Clearing the city with that much troops (52,000) is not something anyone would really do. That would lead to a massive stack with pretty much zero effectiveness. However, reduction to a smaller scale seems plausible.

      I also happen to be an 'expert (I don't personally think so, but am labeled as one)' in WWII. It just seems like the battles then were too big and using too outdated technology that sadly, this game cannot reasonably incorporate any inspiration from the war, other than if a player chooses to use one of the strategies in the war. Many small fronts had large implications (Sicily, D-day, Battle of the Bulge), and cannot be illustrated by the game. Far to many territories would be needed.

      There is one war currently going on that doesn't involve militiants using RPGs and ATGMs blowing up stuff going on right now, which is the Russia-Ukraine war. One is a sort of militant group, but with the backing of Russia, I'll call it a military. The Ukrainian military is, well, a military. That leaves two militaries fighting each other, notably around Donetsk. Barely any changes happen around the front lines, close to the city, which shows how difficult it is to capture a city in reality. Of course, if it was a full blown US vs. Russia military thing in a city, I think more changes would be made to the front lines, but I hope that hypothetical scenario that almost happened over the course of the Cold War (and the nuclear threat).
    • B-17 wrote:

      I'm not completely sure of your intent in mentioning the battle of Grozny, it just seems to support my opinion. I'm not saying that's not the case, but it just seems unlikely that you would reverse your point of view in a couple of posts.
      Yeah, I think it's pretty much only ever going to come down to personal views. You are saying that if they had less troops involved, they could've streamlined the assault and gotten it done quicker, while I think that if they had less troops, it would have just been a bloody quagmire. I don't think those opinions are likely to shift.

      B-17 wrote:

      Many small fronts had large implications (Sicily, D-day, Battle of the Bulge), and cannot be illustrated by the game.
      Obviously we could not have battles that are in the numbers of millions in one city and it's surrounding areas, but in the way of large, pitched engagements, I think that is still very possible, if that is what you mean.



      A man finds an old lamp and rubs it. Out comes a genie that says, “Thank you for freeing me. Would you like to be a Hero of the Soviet Union?”
      The man says yes, and poof! He then finds himself in Stalingrad in 1942, facing five tanks alone and armed with only three grenades.
    • I think the map scale would have to be increased to accommodate making cities more sectional. Look at LA. I have lived all my life in SoCal minus the Army. When we say LA we are talking a huge concrete jungle which in many cases is not just LA city but LA County can include OC and the Inland Empire in general reference. My parents live 60 miles away in the IE and I am constantly in some city all the way when driving out there. When I was in the Army there were huge areas between cities.

      As is to the scale we play currently those cities are huge and more like urban centers. I typically stack in Division strength up to 5 bn. Right now we are at 4 bn and both my Air Cav Div have 4 bn in them now. I have 7 IDs for my invasion force. Not saying how many are on home guard, wink. Then 2 Air Cav Div that move with those 7 IDs. I will eventually make 3 more Air Cav div. I have 2 Marine div who are at 3 bn. I want to expand them to 3 more div as well. Once Brazil is liberated we will go to 5 bn for all div. Point is is that is still a lot of dudes. I was in the 1st Cav and for full strength at the time was around 20K for active duty and another 10K of NG to bring us up to full strength. I was at Ft Hood and at the time it was home of III Corp for 1st Cav and 2AD. It was home to around 75K service members.

      thebalance.com/u-s-army-milita…om-squad-to-corps-4053660

      Even Africa and South America are not to true scale compared to the northern hemisphere. You could fit Russia, all of the rest of Europe, the US and China with room to boot inside of Africa I believe.

      I like the idea of more in depth city fighting but again I think the scale of the map would have to change as well not just adding in more provinces. I am assaulting cities at div level so that is still a lot of dudes moving into that city.

      Maybe they can have the combat rounds within cities last longer. Currently it is an hour per round. Maybe make it an hour and a half for the city to represent the scope, ie the time it would take to clear out a city street by street as opposed to a regular province. Just a thought. Just a thought.
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!
    • Hi B17,

      concerning the VPs - let's see. We were seeing a majority of games lingering until abandoned with players getting into the zone but not quite making it - so we fixed them and added growth through pop.
      Your idea with larger cities is a nice one - we could use this for some very large cities... Essentially flavoring more urban terrain into the map as it is.
      This being said we would need to use this sparingly, say for LA (as Devin pointed out) but not for Munich ;)
      We are not planning to change the scale of the map at this point in time so if it doesn't look cool or doesn't fit, it doesn't fly - so to speak.

      @Devin: We tried to use a different map scale than the usual Mercator Projection used in most class rooms and based our maps on the NASA blue marble shots, albeit altered and adjusted.

      For anyone interested in the scale of places you have to definitely visit thetruesize.com

      Here is Africa with some larger countries crammed into it:





      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • I have no real issue with the scale of the map. Just pointing out the current scale to where cities are actually quite large to the map scale. Currently they represent large urban areas and are probably too large in some cases. Definitely troops etc are not to scale. I post my campaigns to my FB wall. When I first built Carriers I had people responding, "is that to scale?" Well I was the Neo Persian Empire and we cannot let the Greeks or the Romans out do us so we go big or go home. Going up the Red Sea through the Suez was comical as it looked like my Carrier grew wheels or tracks or Xerxes XXIX had 10s of 1000s of "volunteers" pulling the Carrier across the land. It was huge. Again not bashing the game. Just a comment on scale sizes. Or aircraft for example. If they were true to scale we probably could never find them. Look at them to the size of the airbase? It takes up a good chunk of the city.

      In order to visit a city concept like presented I think either the map would have to be enlarged or the cities be able to zoom into more than we can currently with the rest of the map. Both might make the game more cumbersome if the latter was possible at all. Plus the smallest unit we have is a battalion which is several hundred to a thousand roughly. In reality they would be spread out over blocks and blocks of any city for urban assault. One company alone would have several blocks. Plus all these provinces would not be devoid of towns, villages, etc. Not saying add them just something to consider when playing. If we look at say tanks. That does not represent 1 tank. When I was in they we moving from a Brigade structure to a Regiment and apparently have moved back to a Brigade structure. This may be outdated info but according to Answers.com a US Armored Division is three Brigade Combat Teams. Each BCT consists of two Combined Arms Battalions. Each CAB consists of two mech infantry companies and two armored companies. Each armored company is 14 tanks. So that is 168 tanks if my math is right. 28 x 2 x 3. In this game we deploy as a regiment which would be at least two battalions. So at least 56 tanks. Just a reference for scope.

      This goes into greater detail, has some conflicting information from Answers but I think it is more complete and has a link at the bottom to reference the future of the British Army. Again just for an idea of the scope of these units we are putting on the map for an idea of scale.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team

      Here is the USMC which is apparently retaining the RCT format which is what I was saying we went to back in the mid late 80s.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regiment…at_team#U.S._Marine_Corps
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!