Expanded Role of HQ with Advance and Retreat After Combat -- and ADMIRALS!

[Steve C]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

John DiFool

Exactly. It would force the Russians to employ something better than lines of corps. They have plenty of HQ units, now they'll get to use them. As neither side can get by with a long static defense, the Eastern Front would become long lines of temporary defenses, mostly armies, with stacks cetering offensives and counter offensives and there will be a realy possibility of pockets being cut off and surrounded by pincer movements.

Sounds a bit like the real Eastern Front, doesn't it?

Yes, now that's what I want ! Good thread, Jersey John. Think the AI can cope with all those added possibilities though ? Sorta reminds me of 3-D chess, remember that ? Damn, the game was hard enough with only one board. Your ideas are thought-provoking and would provide a real shot in the arm for human players, my only concern is that the AI would be further outclassed.

Real good stuff on the wife topic here as well.

[JerseyJohn]

Steve

Glad you like the thread and the ideas, they're becoming more polished and better defined as this Topic moves along. What I really like is the way so many people have helped shape them.

Next topic has to be on Admirals and having HQs serve as that Amphibious Landing Unit that was discussed in an earlier thread.

I've reached the conclusion that the AI is like one of those mechanical pitching machines; it's okay for perfecting your swing but nothing like facing a real pitcher. Hopefully it will improve even as some of those pitching gizmos have. Meanwhile, I think the game has to be made as good as possible for human players. Handicap scenarios can always be made where one side is designed for the AI to play agains a human. I see them popping up already.

The nice thing about wife and mother-law threads at this site is, with virtually no women either reading or posting we don't have to worry about outraged females presenting their opinions. Which is good. They've invaded all our other clubhouses, saloons, poolhalls, bowling alleys, it's unnatural! Perhaps this is the new refuge for guys who want to express their own unique views of that heavenly bliss called marriage.

[ March 12, 2003, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Tigleth Pilisar]

I'm still unclear on the final rule here. (As if our humble forum is creating the game - but then designers do watch from above

With stacking I am clear that you now feel that individual unit attacks alone in a stack make more sense than some averaged or mega attack. Agreed.

And that an HQ must be present for stacking.

And that stacking can change the Russian strategy from a string of corps in a line to prevent breakthrough (not much like the real Eastern Front), to a Russian strategy employing greater use of HQ and possibly counterattack offensives. Likely a more interesting game.

But I'm not sure about this combined assault. I understand, I think, that you want to perhaps reflect a combined arms attack. Or simply enable more breakthroughs to succeed. But I'm skeptical that the combined assault is needed. It sounds too powerful - units attack twice and get to move after attacking? That really makes HQ value go up!

Perhaps, Jersey you could illustrate one example of the "combined assault" for me. Any example you want. I can't yet envision it.

If only single attack for stacked units (individually) is involved, an Axis player could use 4 ground attacks on a 2 hexside-exposed enemy (if two stacked friendlies - 4 units - were used). I think this is enough to force a breakthrough. Players can risk a 3 unit attack (1 HQ stack with 2 ground units, plus one separate hex ground unit) and not be sure. If prior rules of having air simply reduce readiness of the enemy (or decrease air fleet attack strength vs armies), the use of air with some stacked unit attacks should be sufficient without another "free assault attack". I think it is one or the other - combined assault (which I'm still not clear on) or individual attacks.

Also, you abandoned (seemingly) your line on retreat & rout. Is that still something you feel is required?

[JerseyJohn]

Tigleth Pilsar

You're probably right about the combined assault added with subsequent attacks leaning too strongly in the attacker's favor.

The most extreme example of a combined assult would be a stack (two combat units)flanked by units attached to the same HQ with another combat unit attached to the same HQ two hexes distant, all adjacent to the same defending unit. That unit would be subjected to a combined assault by all five units, such as the assault option in COS. Whether it is a combined total, equated as 2-1 or 3-1, whatever odds, or a single averaged out attack, is still to be decided. If subsequent attacks by these units is also allowed then it should be an averaged out attack, which means being hit six times.

This does seem a bit strong but it's the most extreme example; presumably it would rarely occur except on a front where the defender is abandoning hexes in haste.

A combined assault would also lead to complications not mentioned earlier. Rivers, mixed terrain, etc. in which different units would be attacking under different variables.

If it's an either/or situation I'd go with two units stacked on an HQ which controls three other units. Not having a combined assault rule they would attack as individual units in the manner gone into earlier.

I have not abandoned the advance and retreat suggestions. They just haven't been discussed very much.

I feel advance and retreat rules, including a provision for routed units, would help the game a great deal. Especially in North Africa, where there currently is no ebb and flow whatever.

Regarding routs, a defending unit that goes from 10 or 11 down to 2 or 3 after successive attacks ought to be considered routed and allowed to withdraw several hexes. Presumably it can survive the turn and have a chance at being rebuilt. If it is routed but can't retreat it should be destroyed.

Units receiving less serious losses, say reduced from 10 to 7, should have to retreat one hex. The attacking unit would then have the option of advancing into the vacated hex or remaining where it is to allow a stronger unit's entry.

As you mention, we aren't making anything official, only attempting to forge new ideas into workable forms that might later be incorporated into the game.

Given that, I'm unofficially dropping the combined assault idea as being too devastating when combined with subsequent individual attacks.

The concept worked in COS, but that was without stacked units. The presense of HQ stacks here would weigh too heavily against the defender.

[ March 13, 2003, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Tigleth Pilisar]

I think a good decision to abandon combined assault, but HQ stacking would be a fantastic tactical change to the game.

I like retreat routing too, but what do you think about units taking damage having a "morale" check to see if they retreat? To simplify, perhaps readiness can be a proxy for morale.

Have a rule like units taking damage bringing them to strength 3 or less must make a morale check and if they fail they retreat. Or perhaps if they are reduced to some percentage of original strength, and take damage, they must make a morale check. A morale check would be like "rolling the dice". If the computer rolls above the readiness #, the unit panics.

The advantage of a morale check is that the attacker can't be sure if a unit will retreat or not - the better supplied it is, the lower chance it will retreat at all. The advantage of retreat to the defender is that it may pull a unit close to destruction out of the range of remaining potential attackers, thus saving it. The defender can make the strategic decision of using HQ's around units he does not want to retreat, because the HQ would improve the readiness and thus reduce the chance of retreat.

I think this thread is to long for anyone else to participate in!

[JerseyJohn]

I have to agree on all counts.

First, on the morale checks and reading between the lines that not retreating is a mixed blessing. One of two things would probably happen; either the unit is not attacked again, holds the original line and survives to be reinforced or, the unit is attacked again, in which case the unit and the position are lost! I like that. It's one of those cases a higher echelon would have little control over. I vote for it.

Second, I agree this thread has already become very unweildy. Summarizing all of this into a single coherant suggestion is a task I'm not immediately up to. Thanks for all the adjustments you've made, resulting in a much more coherent concept.

[ March 14, 2003, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Another Possible additive to retreats is to force units to stay costing a severe penalty if they do not retreat and become destroyed, i.e. in the 6th Army's case in Stalingrad, where Hitler forced a deathmatch ultimately costing him a hell of a lot of men and morale and a huge gap in his front...Perhaps also giving the attacker an added experience bonus too for accomplish a complete route. Usually when units route they get tired but they love the running and shootings. It's a great morale booster and good target practice

[JerseyJohn]

Agreed, units that are surrounded and destroyed are a much greater loss than those that fall apart in combat, where at least some of the troops, equipment and supplies are always salvaged immediately and where often stragglers come wandering in after the fact.

COS had a good way of showing this in it's replacement table, very low cost for combat destroyed units and immediate replacement -- surrounded units were unavailable for a year, then cost the full building cost!

I see no similar means of reflecting this in SC except for the higher cost of building new units as opposed to reinforcing those that still exist; a good feature, but it doesn't reflect this particular type of loss, the capture of entire large formations by the enemy.

I'd hate to award hight experience as it's already becoming a problem as it is.

[ March 14, 2003, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[mark248]

wat about increasing production, and or decreasing unit costs, and forming task groups, air groups, and ARMY GROUPS so u CAN put enuff pressure on 1 hex and maybe launch sum more ww2 realistic land offensives?

by this manner, u could also actuallly form wolf packs, and the more subs they have with more experience they have, the more effective they are?

[JerseyJohn]

Interesting ideas. In the game, each sub unit is already a wolfpack with the name only denoting the identifying member -- as in other naval units, which are actually TFs.

Your concept would really call for something along the lines of stacking. Something I've been pushing for since the start, but most people don't want it as they feel it would cut down on playability.

[Slapaho]

Here are my ideas - forgive me if they are not so good but I haven't played the game for long.

History:

WW1 became a static war of attrition due to the inability of either side to capitilise on a break in to the enemy lines by making a break out into the enemy rear - therefore no break throughs. This was due in the main to the relative slow pace and exhaustion of attacking infantry, the total lack of firepower of cavalry and the limiting factor of artillery range. As fast as troops took laand the enemy dug in in new lines, waited for the attack to lose momentum then counter attacked with fresher troops and resupplied artillery.

WW2 saw the advent of the 'attck in depth' concept of warfare, which meant a concentration of overwhelming firpower at the point of contact as well as air disruption of rear echelons of the enemy. The key (and initial success) of 'Blitzkreig' was due to the breakout after overcoming the frontline. Speed was key as it prevented reinforcements plugging gaps, disarray of rear echelon support and command and control breakdown.

The 3 key elements of Blitzkreig (or modern warfare) are

1.Air superiority - this is vital and without it any attack will be doomed to failure. Air superiority allows freedom of ground support attacks, strategic bombing of rear supply and command points and freedom of movement for your own troops. Also vital is the ability of your airforce to spot any threats or reinforcements in the way of your advance and relay this to your command and control.

2. Speed - a local breakthrough has to be quickly developed into a theater threatening advance. The Germans (and Russians) realised the key to this was a mixture of units, from slow heavy tanks that were used to kill enemy armour, to medium and light breakthrough armour to exploit speed with their protection to advance quickly. Infantry and artillery was still ponderous and slow.

3. Tactics - superior training, command and control leads to a more coherent and potent force capable to act and react to all potential and real situations.

The current gmae I think reflects the true nature of the strengths and weaknesses of the nations in 1939, but after about turn 10 the realism effects go out the window and the game becomes just that - a game - which is fine for people who like games, but for others who look for a little more it is frustrating when all the gamey elements kick in.

So - after preaching to the choir here is my 2 cents - based around what has already been discussed;

LAND;

*Units without HQ support can not attack.

Units without HQ support have half movement.

Units without HQ support have a defence 75% of normal.

Units without HQ support can not use the OPERATE function, outside their own national borders.

*Units in an enemy Air Superiority Zone can not attack, have half the movement and 75% defence and resupply. (see AIR)

*this applies to units within their own national borders.

AIR;

An AF can be used to establish 'Air Superiority'. This is an air exclusion zone to enemy AF with a radius of 3 hexes of the AF. Any freindly troops within this radius get a 50% bonus on assaulting enemy troops. Air superiority requires an AF to have EITHER a HQ OR be within its own national borders. If an enemy air superiority zone overlaps then each turn the AF automatically dispute the zone (with no bonuses or loss of bonuses for those hexes in dispute for ground forces in them). This 'uses' the AF operations for that turn.

Any operations flew by an AF outside its 4 hex range is done so at 50% its normal attack strength. This does not apply to Heavy Bombers, but nor can Heavy Bombers operate an air superiority zone.

The air superiority zone is increased in line with advancements in Long Range technology.

An enemy Heavy Bomber unit attacking within an enemy air superiority zone has 0 defence.

AF can not use the OPERATE function, without HQ support, outside their own national borders.

Aircraft Carriers can NOT establish air superiority zones.

SEA;

Due to the strange nature of sea units I don't have any ideas

CHANGES;

Axis Invasion of Sweden is an automatic Russian DOW

Axis invasion of Spain is automatic USA DOW.

USA starts with a HQ

Russia starts with 2 HQ

==================

Anyway, as you can see (I hope), my idea is to shorten the effective range of AF but increase their combined role to a greater degree with attack and defence. Also, the requirements to have a HQ for both attack and defence is increased. While these changes will slightly alter the beginning (Poland will have a harder time than it already has) it will make the game, in the long run a lot tougher - i think.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Slapaho

Interesting. From what you wrote, I think we are looking at what SC is and what SC can become from the same viewpoint.

Your HQ idea in effect, have the HQ acting as the supply funnel for buildups prior to the launch of an offensive. In theory, Mr H is already doing that by the effect that a HQ has on the readiness of a unit.

The Air Superiority zone does address some of the problems with the Air units, but I think the Air is way beyond a fix. The effect it has on the game system needs to be redesigned. Not to mention that your 50% bonus to ground combat is way to high.

Nice to see someone with a different take on some of the ideas that have been posted in the past.