Page 1 of 1

Losing Commander in Chief

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:50 pm
by Baris
By not moving CiC out of region and when they are not combined with units which are defeated by enemy, they stay in region as CiC after city lost. Gamey situation is to leave them in region alone. Although they can train units. It would be good if they are treated like support units that they can be captured.

Re: Losing Commander in Chief

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:16 am
by Durk
I have been thinking about your post and the 'locked' Commanders. Initially, I did not understand if I stack a commander with another unit he would unlock. This is a useful bit of information. I am still trying to adjust to stationary commanders. I think I really like this change as it is quite historic however I have not found my play enhanced. It is a bit more restricted for events such as you post.
So - I almost agree that unlinking the commander from a static city would be a benefit, if attacked.

Re: Losing Commander in Chief

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:22 am
by ERISS
That's a good catch, but I think that however this shadow commanding is not so gamey, as Ageod, to speed the game, had cut (shadowly lol) hard in the engine, the command radius about from range 16 to 7 regions, which is historically not enough.
So, those 2 drawbacks quite invalidate each ones. Sure, the better should be to correct both.

Re: Losing Commander in Chief

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:26 pm
by Baris
I also think stationary CiC is good. What it would really enhance gameplay -or more control of hierarchy- would be if corps commaders can manually pick CiC superiors. Example in our pbem game Tukhachevsky just east of Kursk and Muraviev just north of Kursk decide to attack the city. Engine picks Muraviev to be under Smolensk HQ although he is in the same distance and also inside Tambov HQ radius. Making MTSG impossible.