Surrounding Troops

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

    • Surrounding Troops

      This idea is much less extreme than some of my other posts. This is just a tiny mechanic that's designed to add more strategy to the game.

      It's pretty simple. When troops are surrounded my another nation in a singular province or city, their health will slowly deteriorate. This will occur faster in provinces, which have less resources than cities.
      It's similar to how health decreases when you command troops to speed up.

      So say Moscow was controlled by Russia and was completely surrounded by Ukraine. There are 3 Infantry Battalions inside. Each infantry unit will lose 1 health point per day as they are starved out with cut off supply lines.
      Or, if the province of Djambla in Cameroon is completely surrounded by Congo, the troops inside would lose 2 health points per day.

      This would not occur if the province or city has a harbour. (Unless the harbor is blockaded by enemy ships)
      It would only occur if a singular province or city is surrounded, not an entire country
      It would only occur if the surroundee is at war with the surrounder.

      The idea is to make a way to damage troops without putting your own at risk. It's similar to artillery, only free. :)

      This is just a small idea, it's not important to me whether it gets implemented or not. Just a lil' somethin' to think about. :D

      Update 12/13/19: This feature is a small strategic component and it would be cool to see work in the real game. Overall, though, its definitely not worth it if it'll have such a major impact on the performance. Thank you to everybody who replied to this post.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by HiyaThereM8 ().

    • well to be honest, i dont see myself have 5 infanteire sitting in the provinces around a city, doing nothing just to starve a unit to death for 15 days to avoid risks.

      If you dont have the offensive units to go into a city and conquer it, you might reconsider your strategy or you just dont go to war and play SIM City. ;)
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.
    • Your "tiny" change is anything but...
      Essentially, we always had the design for a supply system in the backlog, but decided against its implementation for complexity as well as technical reasons.
      Taking your example we would for instance need to have all units in the game repeatedly checking their surroundings for specific information .
      This alone would have a major impact on performance... not even mentioning the implications for gameplay.

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      well to be honest, i dont see myself have 5 infanteire sitting in the provinces around a city, doing nothing just to starve a unit to death for 15 days to avoid risks.

      If you dont have the offensive units to go into a city and conquer it, you might reconsider your strategy or you just dont go to war and play SIM City. ;)
      That was unnecessary rude.

      Surrendering enemy units is absolutly realistic, and is one of the things I miss more on this game compared to -let's say- Hearts of Iron.

      It IS how real war works: From Stalingrad, to Grozny, to Devaltesve or Fallujah, sorrounding an enemy position to assure it's surrender it's pretty basic tactical for anyone: You just storm a city when time is against you, or you absolutly need it in order to continue and move on.

      it actually is what blitzkrieg IS about: You attack weak points with overwhelming force and sorround the enemy. Slower forces then assure it's surrrender while your speedy vanguard strikes the next weak or critical point ( but if the trapped enemies don't eventually give up, you're in big trouble).

      Perhaps the Wehrmacht should have been playing SIM City instead of fighting a real war: They refused to storm Leningrad and took 2 months to storm Kiev because the ruskis, you know, refused to surrender: and that very likely doomed Barbarossa even more so than mud and the soviet reinforcements :P

      What HiyaThere wrote is absolutly realistic and logical.



      Your answer is not: You don't even need 5 infateries controling territory around a city: Just having captured that provinces previously.


      Germanico wrote:

      Your "tiny" change is anything but...
      Essentially, we always had the design for a supply system in the backlog, but decided against its implementation for complexity as well as technical reasons.
      Taking your example we would for instance need to have all units in the game repeatedly checking their surroundings for specific information .
      This alone would have a major impact on performance... not even mentioning the implications for gameplay.

      //G
      Now, I understand what Germanico said: that IS logical too


      Tough I'm sorry to hear that :/

      It's really a pitty, and also allows for players to implement so absolutly gamey ( but pretty unrealistic and lame) strategies like rushing: That woudn't happen if you know I can just let you pass and then cut your supply lines off.

      Thus, players would act less like maniac MarioKart Speedsters and more like mantaining a proper front-line of sorts. It would also add more value to units like SpecOps or Airbones, wich can land behind your lines and thus, cut you off from your supply routes.

      Wich are all implications for gameplay I would not feel sad to see implemented.

      Cheers

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Vassily Zaizev ().

    • Vassily Zaizev wrote:

      kurtvonstein wrote:

      well to be honest, i dont see myself have 5 infanteire sitting in the provinces around a city, doing nothing just to starve a unit to death for 15 days to avoid risks.

      If you dont have the offensive units to go into a city and conquer it, you might reconsider your strategy or you just dont go to war and play SIM City. ;)
      That was unnecessary rude.
      Well thats what emoticon are made for...a bit of sarcasm with a grint. It was in no way intended to insult anybody.

      I once played a very complex strategy game..taking weather and support routes into account...I kind of gave up because the dynamics were to intransparent and uncalculable that i lost my troops without knowing what happened.

      this is not how you motivate players.

      You can realize blitzkrieg in CoN as well. Just go for his main cities and destroy the oppoentent ability to recruit new units. Acuatally many player do Blitzkrieg with hordes of infanterie.
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.
    • I think there should be some sort of debuff to surrounded troops. I think that losing health is not really a good idea and would basically drive the already dead and almost useless artillery that you get when you begin the game, but i think that when your troops have no connection to ports or homeland territory there should be an attack, but not defense debuff.
    • jlough231 wrote:

      I think there should be some sort of debuff to surrounded troops. I think that losing health is not really a good idea and would basically drive the already dead and almost useless artillery that you get when you begin the game, but i think that when your troops have no connection to ports or homeland territory there should be an attack, but not defense debuff.
      I my last game, this Artillery was the MVU(most vauluable Unit)...22 Kills...
      It takes ages but sure as hell cleans every AI controlled city while the other offensive units can take care of human players...
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.
    • Germanico wrote:

      Your "tiny" change is anything but...
      Essentially, we always had the design for a supply system in the backlog, but decided against its implementation for complexity as well as technical reasons.
      Taking your example we would for instance need to have all units in the game repeatedly checking their surroundings for specific information .
      This alone would have a major impact on performance... not even mentioning the implications for gameplay.

      //G
      Alright. That alone is good enough reasoning to not. Thanks for considering. :D
    • who would just sit around a city... you attack it. not sit there with units waiting for opponent to build more troops in city making it harder to take. if get to that city and not enough troops to take.. build an airfield and fly more in and take the city by force. who would want someone just to wait out troops??
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp