Skip to main content
Supremacy Logo

Terminating Units

At one time in a doomsday map, I made a stupid mistake, producing railroadguns by the load. At first I though that this was beneficial since they didn't take any oil or food. But when they started increasing in numbers, 1 to 5, 5 to 10, 10 to 20, my food and oil consumption was just ridiculous. My food bumped from -150 -470 something, while my oil turned from -80 to -200 something. My morale was so low, that I had to put at least one troop in every non-core province. I thought of sacrificing them, but my nearest enemy was very far away from my railroad division, and they move so, so slow. So I came up with an idea, decommissioning units, or just terminate them.

It's really that simple, when you click on a unit, there should be an option to terminate them in the far left corner or anywhere else that we usually don't click on, followed by a confirmation and whoosh, they're gone. it if it's a stack, it'll tell you exactly what and how many units you want to terminate. About 25-50% of the resources used making the unit will be compensated and the units consumption and the unit itself will no longer exist. Useful in case of an economic crisis or high consumption costs.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." -Sun Tzu
- Leading officer of the Training Alliance

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

31 Replies

25 Oct 2019, 13:11

daily upkeep on manpower each unit is already those "decomissioning"

25 Oct 2019, 15:24

EZ Dolittle wrote:

I like the idea of decommission units. It also allows for the manpower to be shifted. Imagine that the Cavalry units could never be decommission as you advance in time. Or that the expensive battleships could not be taken out. Did the US Navy send its entire battleship fleet to a doomsday attack on someone because it wanted to redeploy manpower and resources elsewhere? No we decommissioned the ships.

Same should be allowed here.

After all we can start a whole infrastructure and factory project and then cancel it.

Amen! ... I recall playing Civ2 years ago and they allowed you to disband units ... It makes sense as EZ said ... :thumbup:
25 Oct 2019, 15:56

typically during wartime units are rarely disbanded or deactivated. 'Broken' units are sent tot he rear for refitting.

"Es gibt keine verzweifelten Lagen, es gibt nur verzweifelte Menschen" - There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.
General Heinz Guderian (Schneller Heinz)
Kenny says - You've got to know when to hold 'em, Know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away And know when to run
25 Oct 2019, 16:28

f118 wrote:

daily upkeep on manpower each unit is already those "decomissioning"
No, that's replacing.

Terminating is completely disbanding a unit. Thus no more need for replacements.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." -Sun Tzu
- Leading officer of the Training Alliance
25 Oct 2019, 16:55

Vamaw wrote:

And I'm having difficulty seeing why this shouldn't be a thing. Is decommissioning units that much of an unrealistic idea? As far as I remember the US sent injured and incapable soldiers back home. This could be the exact same, if I produce a unit and that unit outlives its usefulness, I make it retire. If I want to get rid of a tank regiment, do I send them to their deaths in battle? And if I overproduce, and risk coup d'État. I believe I could start cutting down on my troops, not just let them stay there.
Injured soldiers are already accounted for when units are damaged. Those armies were not disbanded, they got replacements and were built back up to strength. That's the exact opposite of what this proposal puts forward.

That's why a proposal like this gets no support from majority of players.

General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
25 Oct 2019, 18:30

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

Vamaw wrote:

And I'm having difficulty seeing why this shouldn't be a thing. Is decommissioning units that much of an unrealistic idea? As far as I remember the US sent injured and incapable soldiers back home. This could be the exact same, if I produce a unit and that unit outlives its usefulness, I make it retire. If I want to get rid of a tank regiment, do I send them to their deaths in battle? And if I overproduce, and risk coup d'État. I believe I could start cutting down on my troops, not just let them stay there.
Injured soldiers are already accounted for when units are damaged. Those armies were not disbanded, they got replacements and were built back up to strength. That's the exact opposite of what this proposal puts forward.

That's why a proposal like this gets no support from majority of players.

Well what would players prefer? A long journey that could take days into the midst of battle just to get rid of a unit they don't want OR a simple and convenient feature to get rid of them instantly. They both have the same results, while one is just that much more convenient. Even if it doesn't have any advantages like you say, then it doesn't have any disadvantages too.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." -Sun Tzu
- Leading officer of the Training Alliance
25 Oct 2019, 18:43

Players already prefer kill units spammers, after they run out of ressources...

Some mistakes should be unrepaireble.

25 Oct 2019, 22:23

NoIWillNot99 wrote:

BMfox when you said this idea is useless well you couldn't be more wrong and those god awful reasons you have listed off sure learn from your mistakes but that doesn't mean punish the person that builds to much of the expensive units and his country starts turning against him no one should have to stack up useless units and send them to die this happened to me and I was so close to winning my first match 3 years ago but my country went up in flames and lost the game so ya there should be a feature so u can disable units it should have been in the game from the start
The players that want this feature are the ones that don't understand the game. They keep building units without investing in their economy (read not upgrading Industrial Complexes, building and updating infrastructure). The economy is the engine of your army. Without an economy your army cannot be provided for. When a country produces more than it's economy can support, it goes bankrupt. That's basic economics right there. Instead of disbanding units which is unheard of in war time, you guys need to find a good balance between investing in a economy, research and producing units.

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

I'm having difficulty finding a single instance of a military unit being decommissioned during war time. Can anyone cite a historical example?

One thing this would allow players to do is to "HIDE" injured units. Ooops...This one is down to 7%, so I "retire" it instead of having it included as a lost unit in my stats.

I don't see it as "adding' anything meaningful to game play. All the objectives such a feature would achieve area already possible in game with:

-better management of what units are built

-destruction of units can be done by attrition during battles and NOT rebuilding them.

-if you overbuild... and develop Moral issues which result in provincial rebellions resulting in the loss of your last province... we actually have a name for that event... namely "coup d'État"

Everything what he said!

Vamaw wrote:

And I'm having difficulty seeing why this shouldn't be a thing. Is decommissioning units that much of an unrealistic idea? As far as I remember the US sent injured and incapable soldiers back home. This could be the exact same, if I produce a unit and that unit outlives its usefulness, I make it retire. If I want to get rid of a tank regiment, do I send them to their deaths in battle? And if I overproduce, and risk coup d'État. I believe I could start cutting down on my troops, not just let them stay there.
Every unit heals 15% at day change, this means that your injured and incapable soldiers are healed or sent back home and that the unit has been replenished with new recruits.

dw98 wrote:

typically during wartime units are rarely disbanded or deactivated. 'Broken' units are sent tot he rear for refitting.
Refitting, not deleting or exterminating ;) Same again "Every unit heals 15% at day change, this means that your injured and incapable soldiers are healed or sent back home and that the unit has been replenished with new recruits."

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

Injured soldiers are already accounted for when units are damaged. Those armies were not disbanded, they got replacements and were built back up to strength. That's the exact opposite of what this proposal puts forward.

That's why a proposal like this gets no support from majority of players.

Exactly right, and this feature is alread integrated in the game with the daily healing as mentioned above.
BMfox
Moderator
EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh
Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar
Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!
27 Oct 2019, 03:29

Vamaw wrote:

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

Vamaw wrote:

And I'm having difficulty seeing why this shouldn't be a thing. Is decommissioning units that much of an unrealistic idea? As far as I remember the US sent injured and incapable soldiers back home. This could be the exact same, if I produce a unit and that unit outlives its usefulness, I make it retire. If I want to get rid of a tank regiment, do I send them to their deaths in battle? And if I overproduce, and risk coup d'État. I believe I could start cutting down on my troops, not just let them stay there.
Injured soldiers are already accounted for when units are damaged. Those armies were not disbanded, they got replacements and were built back up to strength. That's the exact opposite of what this proposal puts forward.That's why a proposal like this gets no support from majority of players.
Well what would players prefer? A long journey that could take days into the midst of battle just to get rid of a unit they don't want OR a simple and convenient feature to get rid of them instantly. They both have the same results, while one is just that much more convenient. Even if it doesn't have any advantages like you say, then it doesn't have any disadvantages too.

Of course it has disadvantages.

As you say, it would be more convenient, easier, because anyone could do it without much thought. And that's the problem -- for itself it's maybe only a small particle of the mosaic, but several small particles can change a picture, but ..

.. I prefer a challenging game where thinking and make right decisions leads to success and not a trivial click game.

Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
.... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps.
Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
29 Oct 2019, 02:17

BMFox no you don't understand this fester is amazing nothing is wrong with it YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT literally no one should ever trust your word I already gave you reasons why it should be in the game I don't think I need to do it again

29 Oct 2019, 18:05

NoIWillNot99 wrote:

BMFox no you don't understand this fester is amazing nothing is wrong with it YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT literally no one should ever trust your word I already gave you reasons why it should be in the game I don't think I need to do it again
Please stay civil and polite on the forum!

I and other players have given sound arguments and examples why this feature hasn't been implemented in the game.

Yours faithfully,

Your favourite moderator,

BMfox

BMfox
Moderator
EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh
Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar
Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Suggestions
Play Our Games