Unit Hierarchy in Supreme Ruler Cold War

[Hiller]

I used to be in favor of the concept of case presented a while back, and I'm still type. But with movement training, move the same speed, and bgs know much of the "box" concept already. Something that does not have: some form of command and control inspired by the map. That may be interfered with by opponents. Sufficient control over formations, you can say "axis"? Not sure I'm all for it. Anyone tell me more about this?

[desilva]

Part of the SR feeling is that it has both delivery systems that negate the need for a hierarchy of units supplied. So that leaves us with just the need to utilize a hierarchy of command and control of several units. However, the scale used by BG of the AI would have to be coded so that not only knew what the key objectives to defend or attack, but also the use of individual units in an effort to coordinate the defense of any or attack targets not only key, but their abilities to carry out an attack or defense.

[RyanInt]

The AI as well need to know how to use their assets if necessary to cross a river and most of the amphibious force was not how would the lack of amphibians across the units. You could say that could use an engineer or a bridge, but what if none were available, would be a call from another command or request via e-mail system or how it would be to go to the nearest bridge. If artillery attacks that was just out of the zone or send a recognition element to find the enemy's battery and maneuver to destroy assets.

[AZUL]

I would like to see the player being able to make a formation of units to your liking and save for the formation of this particular group. I like to see more orders or instructions to give to individual units, such as points of reference and something of the order escort and maintaining the unity of a hex away from the unity of his escort. More options mentioned above as the clocks, the point and zone defenses would be good additions. I am only for this if the leaders have two bonds and negative modifiers and prefer to be hidden.

[RockOn]

You should consider whether it was worth the effort to broaden the appeal of games. You know your business, but something occurred to me. If you get the right and the hierarchy that extends the appeal of the game, then the cost of implementing the system will probably pay more than a game. We also assume that is a technical challenge or consuming or time. That said it seems to spend resources trying to get around what would perceive a strong hierarchy. Better stop before walking a lot.

[Squibbit]

I like the idea that military leaders with the bonds, but I think the idea of containers does not agree very well with the 16 km Terrain Hex methodology currently used in the game. It certainly makes sense in games like Hoi, which is based map of the regions. In any case, Supreme Ruler should go the other direction - instead of promoting the game of braking "heaps", stacked the units should be penalized. Now, personally, I feel the battery from the unit 7 is an exaggeration.

[Wyvern]

Do not think the "container" or "box" as a unit drop, as in Hoi. Think of it as more of a loose amorphous entity, which contains several units, which remain independent in form, movement, attack, defense, etc, but everything can be ordered and controlled as a group. Battle groups and give us a lot of this. And progress in the formation of many more. However, the AI does not understand this, and use, and the human being is faced with some defects while using it as no way to turn / pivot training.

[ApplePowerPC]

What would be good, especially if the AI could "use" them as well. If we define the width and depth of coverage and the pivot to address, and order of movements long, that would help. Could do the same with the leaders, or leaders assigned to the "box". If something happened, production in that it would be useful to only two more and armor divisions, and let the AI to create the different battalions.