Battle Types Question

[Canuck21]

Ok, as I've said elsewhere, I think I'm finally over the steepest part of the learning curve with the Editor. I'm still a very long way from producing really top notch scenarios with a lot of variety and imagination, but it's getting there. One thing I'm curious about, which may or may not affect how my scenarios are designed, are battle types. I'm speaking of Attack vs. Meeting vs. Probe vs. GYMKRF*, etc. I've looked in the manuals but can find only cursory reference to them in terms of type of QB maps you are offered and a field to complete when making or selecting a scenario. They might seem self explanatory, but I'm asking here if anyone can expound on that somewhat to give me more of an idea as to the nuances of each (if they exist) as it pertains to how you design a scenario. Thanks a bunch as always  .

 

*(GYMKRF (pneumonic - pronounced AAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!) - My own designation for a new battle type that I've invented and consider myself an expert in. It stands for "Get-Your-Men-Killed-Really-Fast"  )

Edited May 26, 2021 by Canuck21

[kohlenklau]

I think you see it clearly. Maybe you have snatched the pebbles from the master's hand, grasshopper?

AFAIK, the dropdown menu's for your home-made scenario size and type of battle settings serve MOSTLY for internal purposes with the game engine code for QB assignments for points/objectives/etc.

Of course, it also is used in the battle selection screen to help the human pick a battle...you can sort alphabetically A-Z or Z-A or by size Tiny-->Huge or Huge-->Tiny

So, not much more to elaborate on it.

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by kohlenklau

[Combatintman]

Yeah - @kohlenklauhas pretty much nailed it.  The probe/attack etc options are really only relevant if you're making a QB as this affects point allocations and VPs (I think) - if it is a scenario then the battle type appears as text in the 'Load Game' menu but the label you apply has no effect on your AI plans etc.  It just gives the player a clue as to what they might be doing i.e., probe, assault or whatever ... if they read it of course.  In my experience, they'll go by the description that you put in the 'Description' box under the title in the 'Description' part of the editor.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

In scenario design, the only real difference will be in the strength of the attacking force and in the distribution of points. For the player, the type of battle should give you an indication of what the scenario will entail. 

[domfluff]

The definitions are vague, but they give you a general idea (much the same way that "rough-hills-water" gives you a general idea of the map).

The below are the definitions used in Quick Battles. That can serve as a useful yardstick for making other scenarios. I definitely don't think it's worth being bound by them too strictly, but it's a good starting point.

 

From left to right - Meeting Engagement, Probe, Attack, Assault

Broadly speaking:

Meeting Engagements have a 1:1 force ratio. They will tend to either have a single central objective, or perhaps two or three, or they will have objectives that both players will be able to defend easily. The core concept here is that two balanced forces will start on the edge of the map, and will have the chance to both attack and defend.

The further down the list you go, there are some general tendencies.

- The attackers force ratio improves (there are precise figures for this in QB points terms).

From memory, that's something like:

Meeting Engagement: 1.0
Probe: 1.5
Attack: 1.65
Assault: 1.8

- The split between points awarded for casualties and points award for the objective are on a scale - in a Meeting Engagement, most of your points will come from enemy losses, whereas an Assault is almost all about the objective.

Terrain/Casualties VP split

Meeting Engagement: 400/600
Probe: 500/500
Attack: 650/350
Assault: 750/250

- The defensive objectives tend to be buried deeper in the map
- The defender's setup zones tend to be broader, and cover more of the map
-  On Assault missions, the Attacker gets pre-battle intel on the defender

Essentially, you're looking at more and more deliberate attacks. Assault is an all-out attack on an entrenched opponent - the pre-battle intel implies that first-turn artillery will hit them, so the defender can and should buy fortifications to defend themselves.

A Probe, conversely, will give the attackers and advantage, but will make the objectives comparatively easy to reach. Since the points are evenly split, you'll have to at least contest the objective whilst preserving force to get at least a Tactical victory, but you won't go much higher unless you clear the objective - the result is something pretty tentative.

In an assault, if you hold the objective at the end then you'll get a Major Victory at least, even if it costs you most of your guys. 

Edited May 26, 2021 by domfluff

[Canuck21]

This really helps a lot people! Many thanks indeed. Once again I've copied these out and stuck them in my notes. Onward and... well, backwards I guess (I'm playing a GYMKRF scenario ) . 

Many thanks as always!

[kohlenklau]

GYMKRF. I think it is a German military term...I think pronounced "Geime-Kraffe".

In my Hogan Heroes Hollywood German it would be used in a sentence as "Der kompanie fuhrer ist ein Geime-Kraffe offizier und alles ist mach schnelle tot"

 

[Canuck21]

8 hours ago, kohlenklau said:

"Der kompanie fuhrer ist ein Geime-Kraffe offizier und alles ist mach schnelle tot"

Easy for you to say... 

 

[JoMac]

9 hours ago, domfluff said:

Terrain/Casualties VP split:

Meeting Engagement: 500/500
Probe: 400/600
Attack: 650/350
Assault: 750/250

Just noticed a slight typo Domfluff...I switched the VP allocations around for Meetings & Probe :-)
 

 

[domfluff]

I'll have to check later, but I think the 400/600 split is correct - Meeting Engagements prioritise the enemy over the terrain.

[Combatintman]

While I don't know the split, the manual confirms @domfluffis correct in regard to the ground/casualty priorities for meeting engagements:

"The ratio of VP awarded for terrain objectives versus casualties will vary based on the type of battle, with Meeting Engagements awarding the least VP for terrain objectives and the most VP for unit casualties, and Assaults awarding the most VP for terrain objectives while de-emphasizing unit casualties."

Engine 4 manual, page 119 refers.

[Canuck21]

...but, these really only matter in QB's though, correct? The designer sets the VP's for any scenario he designs, if I read the above correctly. Am I interpreting this correctly? I'm mildly confused though because I thought the only objectives that could be set in QB's were for Terrain. Casualties, etc. didn't factor into those, or am I mistaken on that?

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Canuck21

[domfluff]

The above only matters for Quick Battles, but that can serve as a useful basis for deciding what an "Attack" actually means.

Objectives can be a number of things - Terrain is part of that, but there are Unit-based objectives, and also the overall parameters for casualties and ammunition expenditure.

In a QB, the objectives are for terrain and the casualties parameter - for that, if that was set to 100VP, if there were 2000 points worth of army, and 1000 points worth was destroyed, you would earn 50VP.

  

[domfluff]

Basically, it's a guide. Actual scenario design can and should vary wildly, but it's not a bad place to start.

[Canuck21]

Ahh, ok. I think I'm starting to see the light (looks suspiciously like a Canadian Pacific locomotive at times though ). Thanks for this.

[Combatintman]

17 minutes ago, Canuck21 said:

...but, these really only matter in QB's though, correct? The designer sets the VP's for any scenario he designs, if I read the above correctly. Am I interpreting this correctly? I'm mildly confused though because I thought the only objectives that could be set in QB's were for Terrain. Casualties, etc. didn't factor into those, or am I mistaken on that?

 

Correct - if it is a scenario, you can make it whatever battle type you like and it will have no bearing on what you have done elsewhere in the editor; however, it is obviously good practice to call your scenario a meeting engagement if that it is what it is because it is one of the things a player will look at when deciding whether they want to play the thing or not.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Combatintman

[chuckdyke]

Some people look inside a dictionary for definitions. Here we look at the game manual which is fair enough. Lots of people stop reading it once they understand to play the game. Attack, little or no intel at the onset, assault when you have the intel to destroy enemy units. I never look at the ratio trust the intelligence in the briefing. Like suspected enemy strength a company with support for example. 

[domfluff]

Actually, checking that, it's a little more complex than that in implementation, but still.

You have:

Terrain Objectives -

Occupy (Must have at least one unit in this objective at game end, and no enemy)
Destroy (Must destroy)
Preserve (Must not damage)
Touch (Must touch)
Exit (Must exit the map. Points here are not earned, but instead the other side earns them if they do not exit)

Unit Objectives - 

Destroy (Points for killing, partial points for damaging)
Destroy All (Points for killing only)
Spot (Points for spotting)

Parameters - (Set Friendly/Enemy and a percentage threshold to reach, and how many VP you score if you meet that threshold)

Casualties
Condition (morale, fatigue, supression, wounds)
Ammo

You can also just assign a flat value to one side or the other.


Victory is:

V = ( Side_A_VP + 10) / (Side_B_VP + 10)

Draw: V less than 1.25.
Minor Victory: V less than 1.75.
Tactical Victory: V less than 2.5 and 30% of potential VP earned.
Major Victory: V less than 4.0 and 55% of potential VP earned.
Total Victory: V equals 4.0 or more and 80% of potential VP earned.

Ithikial has a really good spreadsheet on Bootie's site to work this out.

[Canuck21]

13 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Correct - if it is a scenario, you can make it whatever battle type you like and it will have no bearing on what you have done elsewhere in the editor; however, it is obviously good practice to call your scenario a meeting engagement if that it is what it is because it is one of the things a player will look at when deciding whether they want to play the thing or not.

Very good point. I'm doing that in mine, but this clarifies why for me.

11 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Actually, checking that, it's a little more complex than that in implementation, but still.

You have:

Terrain Objectives -

Occupy (Must have at least one unit in this objective at game end, and no enemy)
Destroy (Must destroy)
Preserve (Must not damage)
Touch (Must touch)
Exit (Must exit the map. Points here are not earned, but instead the other side earns them if they do not exit)

Unit Objectives - 

Destroy (Points for killing, partial points for damaging)
Destroy All (Points for killing only)
Spot (Points for spotting)

Parameters - (Set Friendly/Enemy and a percentage threshold to reach, and how many VP you score if you meet that threshold)

Casualties
Condition (morale, fatigue, supression, wounds)
Ammo

You can also just assign a flat value to one side or the other.


Victory is:

V = ( Side_A_VP + 10) / (Side_B_VP + 10)

Draw: V less than 1.25.
Minor Victory: V less than 1.75.
Tactical Victory: V less than 2.5 and 30% of potential VP earned.
Major Victory: V less than 4.0 and 55% of potential VP earned.
Total Victory: V equals 4.0 or more and 80% of potential VP earned.

Ithikial has a really good spreadsheet on Bootie's site to work this out.

Excellent! Yes, I've seen that in the manual and I do have Ithikial's spreadsheet and have been using it, although this will help me understand the nuances much better.

Appreciate all this as always