Shifting defense or static defense?

[Crushingleeek]

I don't like the casualty triggers, at least not the type that Theater of War used. I just remember certain battles where a tank platoon would get wiped out and it would trigger instant reinforcements. It was predictable and unrealistic. Also, it led to bad habits for myself; I would intentionally kill off my last tank in order to trigger the reinforcements.

For scenarios, you could have triggers unknown to players that also have (variably) delayed onset of action. It would simulate word going up the chain of command to division or corps level, and them reacting to the bad news by committing reserves to the sector. Then a parallel trigger (which is already possible with current editor) deducts X amount of points for sustaining the threshold amount of casualties/loss of equipment.

that would be awesome.

[Michael Emrys]

But what if the higher commander is a "reinforce success, not failure" kind of guy? That way, if your attack is going well, you get an extra company or two of whatever is on the board. Not sure how that would apply to the defense though. Maybe if the defense in your sector is being overrun, you get an order to pull back and victory for you is based on how many of your units you manage to save.

Michael

[winkelried]

But what if the higher commander is a "reinforce success, not failure" kind of guy? That way, if your attack is going well, you get an extra company or two of whatever is on the board. Not sure how that would apply to the defense though. Maybe if the defense in your sector is being overrun, you get an order to pull back and victory for you is based on how many of your units you manage to save.

Michael

on the attack this could be one of the options - to get reinforcements only when things go well. e.g. an objective been taken. (you'll need a trigger for this).

in the defense a lot depends on doctrine and the context of the battle. there can be something like flexible defense without reinforcements (could also be delaying). but there can also be something like: yield to the pressure and counterattack with the reserve (battallion, regimental or even divisional level). I have some doubts that reinforcements from corps level would arrive in time for a 4 hour battle which is the maximum for CMBN - even for divisional reserves this could be tight (except naturally for artillery and air support).

[womble]

on the attack this could be one of the options - to get reinforcements only when things go well. e.g. an objective been taken. (you'll need a trigger for this).

The trouble with this sort of arrangement is that it can make a game too easy. You've achieved this much with what you've got, and presumably degraded the enemy in order to do so, and now fresh troops get piled in? While it's operationally correct, balancing it so that you need the fresh troops in order to drive on to the next objective is going to be very difficult to do without turning it into a "Get Objective x and the game is effectively over" situation.

I'd think (and am prepared to be educated otherwise) that "reinforcing success" is also somewhat outside the scale of CM scenarios: how often did, say, a Battalion commander have a spare company ready to pile into an attack on 10-30 minutes' notice if the lead company "took Hill 345"? I would think this sort of situation would be more the province of the Campaign.

[winkelried]

The trouble with this sort of arrangement is that it can make a game too easy. You've achieved this much with what you've got, and presumably degraded the enemy in order to do so, and now fresh troops get piled in? While it's operationally correct, balancing it so that you need the fresh troops in order to drive on to the next objective is going to be very difficult to do without turning it into a "Get Objective x and the game is effectively over" situation.

If there is a second line of defense for the defender, the game would not be over by reaching a first target. With the large 4x4 km maps such setups are possible.

I'd think (and am prepared to be educated otherwise) that "reinforcing success" is also somewhat outside the scale of CM scenarios: how often did, say, a Battalion commander have a spare company ready to pile into an attack on 10-30 minutes' notice if the lead company "took Hill 345"? I would think this sort of situation would be more the province of the Campaign.

I don't think a battalion commander would be allowed to have a full company (1/3 of his assets) in reserve. On battalion level you would have a platoon, on regimental level a company as reserve. But as we can play rather long battles (up to 4 hours) and have large maps (4x4km) one could design such scenarios where such a reserve would arrive even an hour later.

At the end it's about wether you like huge scenarios or not i believe.

[Crushingleeek]

But what if the higher commander is a "reinforce success, not failure" kind of guy? That way, if your attack is going well, you get an extra company or two of whatever is on the board. Not sure how that would apply to the defense though. Maybe if the defense in your sector is being overrun, you get an order to pull back and victory for you is based on how many of your units you manage to save.

Michael

sky's the limit for the designer. (well, would be, if we have a good triggering system)

another huge area where triggers would be huuge, is with AI tactics.

Trigger: player has more than 8 troops in area X.

Action: AI group A1 changes order; advance to area Y.

(area Y is a perfect flanking position on area X based on terrain objectives)

All of a sudden, AI is dynamic.

[Michael Emrys]

another huge area where triggers would be huuge, is with AI tactics.

Trigger: player has more than 8 troops in area X.

Action: AI group A1 changes order; advance to area Y.

(area Y is a perfect flanking position on area X based on terrain objectives)

All of a sudden, AI is dynamic.

Now that could be interesting. If it can be done.

Michael

[Thomm]

Trigger: player has more than 8 troops in area X.

Action: AI group A1 changes order; advance to area Y.

AI does not have any units who have LOS to area X or only units out-of-command.

What happens?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Michael Emrys]

AI does not have any units who have LOS to area X or only units out-of-command.

What happens?

Realistically, nothing should happen, at least not right away. If there are out-of-command units with eyes on Area X and are not badly suppressed, they could theoretically send a runner back to headquarters. But that would likely take a lot of time.

Michael

[Crushingleeek]

AI does not have any units who have LOS to area X or only units out-of-command.

What happens?

Best regards,

Thomm

Getting into the gritty details, you could imagine countless scenarios where something makes sense or not, but even if they didn't have LOS, maybe there was sound contact, or there was some intel from PoW's about plans, etc. etc.

you could abstract any reason for the trigger. but it doesn't necessarily have to be about a plausible AI reaction to player intentions. these triggers could also just be a way to add variability/immersion to the game.

another eg, "more than x units of player 'allied' spotted --> action: player 'axis' fire support artillery on area 'y'" and y could be anywhere on the map, not necessarily where allied units are. maybe simulate inaccurate arty fire.

or x units of player spotted, action: axis group A1 dismount vehicles, order to area Y, assault, cautious

endless possibilities....

[Crushingleeek]

the only trigger we have right now is time from start of battle, which results in rigid plans, even if you can choose from up to 5.

just imagine how versatile you could simulate AI behavior if other triggers were included. i don't know how its coded though I imagine this could be do-able.

[Crushingleeek]

Realistically, nothing should happen, at least not right away. If there are out-of-command units with eyes on Area X and are not badly suppressed, they could theoretically send a runner back to headquarters. But that would likely take a lot of time.

Michael

There is so much focus on what's "realistic," and believe me I am of this camp.

But the AI and its behaviors, as some are woefully lamenting, are painfully unrealistic at times.

So, triggers actually help the AI think more realistically.

Fine, if it has not LOS, add an extra trigger, here:

Trigger: "more than x units of player "allies" in area X" AND

Trigger: "more than y units of player "axis" in area Y"

(where Y is a plausible area of LOS or sound contact of area X)

Action: "move units of player "axis" in "group A1" to area Z"

where Z is a flanking location of area X

endless possibilities... just some scripting that hopefully could be worked in.

[Tank Hunter]

Eventually I think this is a must. An attached scripting language that allows designers to define set of rules that are executed when certain conditions are met.

Other games have utilized scripts with pretty good results and I think same system would do fine in CM.

This should of course be combined with improved TAC AI so that it can execute basic orders properly. For example if the AI issues a move order for whole company through a gap and a whole squad gets shot down to pieces while moving then the rest of the company should stop and find another way, right now all of them will run through the same gap acting as brain dead zombies.

[sburke]

Eventually I think this is a must. An attached scripting language that allows designers to define set of rules that are executed when certain conditions are met.

Other games have utilized scripts with pretty good results and I think same system would do fine in CM.

This should of course be combined with improved TAC AI so that it can execute basic orders properly. For example if the AI issues a move order for whole company through a gap and a whole squad gets shot down to pieces while moving then the rest of the company should stop and find another way, right now all of them will run through the same gap acting as brain dead zombies.

There is only one that I know of that seems to really focus on this (the Command Ops game series at matrix) and it is only playable against the AI. Can you cite some others that you believe do make this work? Just curious as most I have seen either react like an ant colony to any sighting of your units or just have a set rigid plan.

[slysniper]

that "reinforcing success" is also somewhat outside the scale of CM scenarios: how often did, say, a Battalion commander have a spare company ready to pile into an attack on 10-30 minutes' notice if the lead company "took Hill 345"? I would think this sort of situation would be more the province of the Campaign.

JUST ANY COMMANDER THAT BELEIVED IN HOLDING A RESERVE FORCE WHILE ATTACKING TO DO JUST THAT. EXPLOIT SUCCESS.

What, this was a unknown concept to battalion leaders, but could be used by squad, platoon and company leaders. The concept has been around for thousands of years, but lets not potray the Battalion doing it in the game.

You make no sence in that it is not within the realm of a CM level game.

[Georgie]

Eventually I think this is a must. An attached scripting language that allows designers to define set of rules that are executed when certain conditions are met.

Other games have utilized scripts with pretty good results and I think same system would do fine in CM.

This should of course be combined with improved TAC AI so that it can execute basic orders properly. For example if the AI issues a move order for whole company through a gap and a whole squad gets shot down to pieces while moving then the rest of the company should stop and find another way, right now all of them will run through the same gap acting as brain dead zombies.

While playing Huzzar as the US against the AI, great map, I stationed a lone M4 75mm about 50m to the side of the last river crossing on the US right flank. I guess the Axis tanks and AFVs got an advance order to cross the river at that point because the lone M4 destroyed 3 Panthers and about 7 or 8 AFVs. This would never happen IRL and and it would be good if it didn't happen in CMBN. But how can it be prevented?

[womble]

JUST ANY COMMANDER THAT BELEIVED IN HOLDING A RESERVE FORCE WHILE ATTACKING TO DO JUST THAT. EXPLOIT SUCCESS.

What, this was a unknown concept to battalion leaders, but could be used by squad, platoon and company leaders. The concept has been around for thousands of years, but lets not potray the Battalion doing it in the game.

You make no sence in that it is not within the realm of a CM level game.

It's the timescale for arrivals on the battlefield that I'm doubting. If there's a trigger "Take objective y", does it make sense that whatever the next echelon up has assigned as the reserve for all the activity in its zone will be "just back of the baseline" for the specific map where objective y is? No. If it's a small scale scenario, say platoon-sized, perhaps the Company commander might be holding mortars and some tanks in reserve to support the whole Company. The mortars could be released immediately for fire missions, but how far away would the tanks be kept if they've got to cover the whole Company's area of operations? And as the battle scales up, the area any reserves have to cover becomes larger, and the distance and time to arrival in your particular sector, commensurately greater. If it's taken any significant (relative to the scale of the engagement) time for an objective to be achieved (as it probably should for something key enough to trigger reinforcements) then will the reinforcements arrive within the time remaining of the game? And how much fun would it be playing through the "dead" turns while you wait for the reinforcements that will enable you to continue to press?

[slysniper]

It's the timescale for arrivals on the battlefield that I'm doubting.

Ok, that is a point. But not the only point, it really comes down to what the designer wants to potray. Not if it would be the common time frame as to what would be the normal situation of a formation of that size.

If I want a commander to send A company formation to the left flank and another to the right, Holding a reserve to send and reinforce whichever makes their goal the quickiest. My reserve force company is not going to be the normal distannce away. it is going to be at the closest location I want them that reinforce either unit.

Plus , just because the trigger point in the game will bring troops maybe too quickly, it likely will have a option to delay when they arrive so that the timing is a little more realistic.

But again, the timing in the game is always much faster than what real life events played out. So wanting realistic times is questionable to me anyway. The times should be made for good game flow, not historically accurate.

The game needs to be designed in game flow, not historical flow. but some try to do just the opposite, As historically correct as possible. A good way to wreck some scenarios.

[Crushingleeek]

it really comes down to what the designer wants to potray. Not if it would be the common time frame as to what would be the normal situation of a formation of that size.

+1!!! The time frame (which as I suggest should incorporate delays) should not be a reason to shoot down the idea of scripting triggers!

Plus , just because the trigger point in the game will bring troops maybe too quickly, it likely will have a option to delay when they arrive so that the timing is a little more realistic.

thank you for the re-emphasis.

Besides, the use of reinforcements was only just one of a huge # of possibilities that would be opened up by just a few extra simple triggers. I just came up with that one on the spot.

Triggers would enhance AI behavior so incredibly much, and to use the flanking example from earlier, while the mechanism would not be the same as a human player (ie, LOS contact), it would make the computer opponent much more, to use the buzz-word, realistic.

[womble]

+1!!! The time frame (which as I suggest should incorporate delays) should not be a reason to shoot down the idea of scripting triggers!

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think scripting triggers, hell, even a whole scripting language that can write deeply nested CASE and IF-THEN/WHILE-WEND structures would be a great addition to the AI. I just think that reinforcements arriving according to triggers are such a boundary case that's already, for most instances, covered as well or better by the options in campaigns. Especially if they improved the campaign inter-scenario stuff too.

While it's entirely reasonable to expect shorter timescales for reinforcements, to suit the "frenetic" (relative to RL operations) pace of CM games, it would feel deeply odd to have reinforcements magically appear at the point of hitting an objective... Not to mention that it'd tell you for sure you have actually achieved it, which isn't the case at the moment until you hit ceasefire...