SC2 - Does Tacitcs have a place in SC?

[Edwin P.]

I was thinking about how different armies respond to combat and was wondering whether tactics have a place in SC.

Example - The player would have a default defense tactic for all land units that could be overridden on a unit by unit basis.

- Hold the Line (current default)

- Delay the Enemy: Unit would retreat 1 hex after each combat round. Unless the enemy has a follow up unit available to continue the attack the unit would have an increased chance of surviving.

- Retreat before contact: Unit would reteat 2 hexes after first attack, defensive value of unit reduced by 50% for first attack.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Sounds great, hope this gets somewhere because the game would be vastly improved.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn,

Thanks for your feedback, I was worried that tactics might not be appropiate in a game dealing with Armies and Corps.

Now the attacker could use rules such as;

1. Attack (current default)

2. Advance After Combat - Attack at -25% strength but advances into hex the defender leaves.

Attacking unit attacks at reduced strength as the unit is advancing while attacking.

3. Hasty Attack - Attacks at -50%% strength, but defender can not retreat after combat during this or any following combat rounds.

This reflects a unit launching an immediate attack on an enemy unit upon coming into combat with it. The enemy unit does not have time to organize a response and is pinned in place for attacks by flanking units.

4. Deliberate Attack - Attack unit attacks at +20% readiness if can attack without moving from starting hex and was not attacked in prior combat phase.

This reflects a unit moving into position and then preparing its forces to attack after a period of rest and reorganization.

[Edwin P.]

Occassionally in WWII an Army did not aggressively advance when ordered.

If an Army/Corps unit moves and is not commanded by a HQ unit I would assign it a small chance, say 5% that it would advance up to an enemy unit but not attack it if ordered, ie Anzio. (and tell the player this with an appropiate pop-up message - General is awaiting reinforcements prior to resuming the attack).

Thus any unit would have a 100% chance of attacking if it made no other move that turn or was in the influence of a HQ unit.

If a unit moved that was not influenced by a HQ unit there would be a 5% that it would not engage in combat if it encountered hostile forces.

"Okay, General, I ordered you to attack why didn't you push forward." or imagine Lincoln asking a the Commander of the Army why didn't you advance?

[ March 27, 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin P.

Sure, Lincoln went through that for months on end with George McClellan. At one point, Secretary of War Stanton made his famous quote, "If McClellan had a million men he'd dig in, say Lee had two million and call for reinforcements!"

After the Battle of Antietam, Little Mac wrote to his wife, "Those whose opinions I value most assure me the battle was conducted brilliantly!"

No place for Yes men on old Georgie's staff.

Good ideas. Other than Lucas at Anzio, I don't know of too many high ranking WW II generals this would apply to, and it's debatable whether Lucas was actually wrong. He felt, with good reason, that he didn't have enough men to secure the beachead and move inland as well. The Germans who would have been counterattacking wouldn't have been coming from Casino, as is usually made to be the case, but from fresh reserves farther north; so drawing an attack upon his own units would not have helped Clark break out to rescue him.

The best example of that sort of snafu might have been the British Expiditionary Force in 1940. They were supposed to attack south, back to France, while a French Army attacked north, into Belgium, opening a corridor for them and the French troops trapped with them. Instead they moved to Dunkirk and awaited evacuation. An aspect of that disastrous campaign generally overlooked, that the British in the Low Countries made themselves totally useless. One French general in later years put it this way for a BBC World at War interview, "It is okay to be a little selfish, but the British were very, very selfish."

I hate to recount that, and am not trying to justify the absurd French conduct of Plan-D, but in light of all the heat France takes for it's quick fall, a little of the blame should be extended to the British as well. If the breakout, breakthrough attack had been successful, it would have been Hurrying Heinz Guderian (who I admire greatly) cut off along the coast, waiting for a relief column instead of the B. E. F. and the defense of France, with the ten British and another twenty French divisions bolstering the line, might have turned out differently.

Anyway, I think the British action is a good example of what you're talking about.

Of course, in Libya, after Balbo's accidental death newly appointed Marshal Grazziani deliberately misinterpreted Mussolini's suggestion that he advance into Egypt. When Il Duce finally lost his patience and demanded to know why his army wasn't heading toward the Suez, Grazziani replied, "Who, me?" More likely he was thinking, why me?

[ March 27, 2003, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Tigleth Pilisar]

I played an old Atari game called Eastern Front 15-20 years ago. Just loved it. In the advanced game it allowed you to set each unit in one of 4 modes:

Entrench - better defence

March - more movement, worse combat

Normal

Offensive - better offence, but worse defence vs counterattack.

Units retreated in this game based on an unknown formula, but by entrenching them it was less common for them to retreat.

Wish I could still play this game - it was a classic.

[Edwin P.]

Eastern Front - A true classic, a tough AI and the hexes changed color in winter.