Relative combat strength and capabilities

[ev]

I gather Hubert & Co. are giving the final touches to The Editor. Therefore, if they are not already working on the default scenarios, they will probably start doing so any minute.

I have been giving some thought to what the relative combat capabilities of land units should be. These are some of my ideas:

Infantry was much better at defense than at offense. Infantry needs a three to one superiority to succesfully attack enemy infnatry. A two to one is a toss up. So infantry' soft defense should be twice its soft attack, unless the combat resolution engine already requires 2:1 odds for a succesfull attack.

Tank was much better at attacking infantry. Tanks should have twice the soft attack strength of infantry.

Defending Armor had an advantage in tank vs tank combat, but the advantage of the defender was not as clear and decisive as in the case of infantry vs. infantry. So Tank's hard attack strength should be 4 while the Tank's hard defense strength should be 5.

To sum up:

Infantry Army Tank Group

Soft Attack 2 4

Soft Defense 4 5

Hard Attack 2 4

Hard Defense 4 5

The above are all for Level 0 units. I also assume the combat resolution engine does not require attacker superiority. I am incorporating the defender's combat advantage into my relative strengths.

...of course I know very little about the combat resolution engine of SC2. Could anyone tell me more about it?

Finally, I would like Hubert to consider one last idea: A tank unit that has not moved at all should be allowed to attack twice, provided both attacks are against the same enemy unit. Please note, I am talking about a tank unit that started the turn next to an enemy unit. The tank unit must not move at all during that gameturn. Provided it does not move, it may attack one enemy unit (the same one) twice.

[Retributar]

ev

Tank was much better at attacking infantry. Tanks should have twice the soft attack strength of infantry.

-----

Be careful on this point 'ev'... from what i have always gathered is that 'Tank' Units attacking infantry...usually didn't fair too-well by itself...especially if the terrain was other than FLAT & CLEAR .

However,...what i think you really meant by 'Tank' is 'Armored Units' such as an Armored-Corp's...that included Infantry & Artillery support which would be essential to the survival of the Tank.

The Russians many times took advantage of independent 'Tank-Units' that were unprotected by Infantry support and took them out with ease...such as when the Germans lost around half of their Ferdinand's in the opening rounds at Kursk!.

------

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/elefant/elefant.htm

" they were split in several groups of at least fifteen units, assigned to several divisions. From the first day they were employed as breaktrough assault tanks being able to pierce the Soviet defences. Then, due to lack of MG, they proved to be a complete failure. Artillery fire separated infantry from tanks and, without it, Elefants were defenceless because lacking MGs. To get better cooperation a temporary, ill-fated field attempt to mount a rear platform for embarking infantry resulted only in additional losses between the soldiers: as Ferdinands were not able to protect themselves against anti-tank squads, they were unable to protect infantry from MG nests. Because of this 44 Ferdinands were lost in the fightings."

Sd.Kfz. 184 "Ferdinand"

http://www.geocities.com/armysappersforward/kursk.htm

BATTLE OF KURSK

4. German Tactical Concept

" the III Panzer Corps with its three panzer divisions would lead the attack of Army Kempf southwest of Belgorod. The three all-infantry corps were to defend the flanks of the penetrations -- the LII Corps the west flank of 4th Panzer Army and the XI and XLII Corps the flanks of Army Kempf."

"Just as Gen. Model did not expect his infantry divisions to break through the Russian defenses without armored support, Field Marshal Manstein did not expect his tankers to push through without infantry. The infantry support, however, would be provided by the armored infantry, panzergrenadier, units of the panzer and panzergrenadier divisions. These troops were well trained in working with tanks and rode to the battlefield in armored personnel carriers."

" The German tanks usually attacked in a battalion force of about 50 tanks spread over a frontage of about 1,200 meters. The first wave was formed by two lead companies, preferably one of them a Tiger company at the point of the arrowhead. Each forward company placed two platoons of five tanks in a 500-meter line with the ten tanks spaced about 50 m apart. The two remaining platoons and the headquarters section followed in column. The tanks of each of the platoons were arranged in a wedge or arrow shape, giving the name to the formation. The mission of the first wave was to attack the enemy antitank defense. The Tigers were especially effective at this task, since their 88mm guns gave them a range advantage over the Soviet tanks and 76mm antitank guns. They could engage the Russian guns and tanks while still outside the effective range of the enemy weapons. The German second wave would provide covering fire for the first wave with one tank company and then would attack the enemy infantry with the help of one or two companies of the division's panzer grenadiers. These armored infantrymen would move forward in armored personnel carriers as close as possible to the point where they would engage the enemy. Then they would dismount and, supported by assault guns, attack the remaining antitank guns, machine gun emplacements, and infantry positions. The third wave, with the remaining tank company and the bulk of the panzer grenadiers, would eliminate any remaining resistance. The flanks were protected by antitank guns, operating by platoons and moving by bounds. These were essentially standard German tank-infantry tactics. The most important departure from the standard was the use of the Tiger tanks at the point of the arrow in the first wave. The most significant difference from the initial tactics on the north face of the salient was the use of tanks in the initial attack. In the north, as Section I.2 indicated, the initial attack was primarily by infantry units supported by assault guns and Ferdinands."

Other than that point...the rest sounds reasonably good.

[ June 24, 2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[ev]

Yes Retributar.

I used the words Tank and Tank Units to mean Armored Groups. I am using SC jargon. I fully understand these Tank Groups represent several armored divisions each including tanks, infantry, artillery, engineers, etc.

[ev]

...by the way, my table above did not show the way I expected it to. Let's see if it comes out better now:To sum up:

----------------Infantry Army-----Tank Group

Soft Attack------------2--------------4

Soft Defense-----------4--------------5

Hard Attack------------2--------------4

Hard Defense-----------4--------------5

[ev]

I really would like to hear reactions to the idea I introduced above:

A tank unit that has not moved at all should be allowed to attack twice, provided both attacks are against the same enemy unit. Please note, I am talking about a tank unit that started the turn next to an enemy unit. The tank unit must not move at all during that gameturn. Provided it does not move, it may attack one enemy unit (the same one) twice.

I feel strongly that Armored Groups are more than just Infantry on steroids. In SC, tanks looked like a stronger, faster infantry. Otherwise, they were not very different. The problem, however, was to find exactly what makes the tank different, and then finding a way to model that in a game of the scale of SC.

A most important contribution of the Tank (and Armor in General) was that it could continue to advance under enemy fire. How do we model this in a game like SC? These are my two cents:

On movement: Armored Groups should move faster through enemy territory and enemy ZOC's.

On combat: (1) Allow multiple combats as per above. (2) Allow to retreat prior to being attacked if odds look to difficult. (3) Allow advance after combat.

[Slapaho]

I feel the combat resolution as it is in SC does not lend itself to well to the strategic value of the weapons and tactics employed. The combat resolution is to simplistic to reflect the advantages / disadvantages of defence and offence, weaponry and above all tactics.

In SC1, it is impossible to bring overwhelming fire power to bear from one army as it has (as does its enemy) a maximum strength that makes it impossible for thae attacking army to 'kill' the enemy unit without massive air strikes and/or surrounding the enemy with attacking armies. Personally I would prefer to have the option of doubling the size of a standard armies strength, at a relative cost in MPP, to reflect the ability of countries to equip what could be called 'battle groups'. I would also link the relative strength of the unit to its offence/defence and therefore a unit with strength 10 will do double the damage to a unit it is attacking which has only strength 5.

On a different point, but linked - simaltaneous movement. Each turn the players would issue their orders and then watch them be resolved. This, although far more complexed in resolving combat, would imo add an extra dimension.

[SeaMonkey]

Apart from the soft attack values, I believe the Tank groups of SC performed abstractly correct. ie. ignoring enemy zones of control. The one addition, spurred by ev's post, I would add, is allow the SC2 Tank group the option of attacking first and then moving. This could also be extended to the upper research levels of mechanization for infantry units.

[ev]

Hi guys, thanks for your comments.

I agree with Slapaho on the way SC makes it impossible to mass units for an attack.

I understand Hubert's preference to avoid stacking. Stacking is a pain in the neck. There are many things I don't like about it. It looks ugly, it is cumbersome, and it is not quite as realistic as it seems. In real life, units don't stack on top of each other. Rather, higher command narrows the width of each units front.

Furthermore, given the scale of the board (50 miles per hex) and the scale of the units (corps and armies), stacking would make sense only for corps. It does not make sense to stack two or three armies in a 50 mile tile. However, SC badly needs some way of combining corps into an army when you need to mass your smaller units for an attack, and, splitting them back into corps when you need to defend a wide front.

It just occured to me one way to solve this problem, which I hope Hubert will read:

There is a game called Legion by Freeverse... Great Game. You all should try it.

One of the things I like about Legion is the way in which units can be joined. In Legion units combine into an Army. It costs movement (Action) points to join or remove a unit from that Army. Each unit retains its individual characteristics and takes losses independently while in combat. The combined group moves at the speed of the slowest unit.

I would allow 2 corps size units to combine into an Army using a scheme similar to Legion's. After spending a set # of action points 2 corps could be combined into an special kind of Army made of the 2 original corps. They would fight together. The computer would add their total strength in combat, and would allocate losses between the two units. As far as the player is concerned the 2 combined Corps would look and feel like an Army unit the player decides to split the unit back into two Sorps (agains spending some AP's).

Only Armies formed by combining 2 Corps could be split. These armies fromed by combining 2 corps would count as 2 units for HQ purposes. They would also count as two Corps for "Force Pool Limits". Otherwise they would behave as an army.

2 Corps should cost a bit more than 1 Army since they could join together and then split again.

SC really needs something like this. You need corps to cover the huge Russian Front. But you also need to combine these corps into armies to succesfully attacked the enemy line.

I would really like to hear from Hubert or one of the other guys close to him on this issue.

[Retributar]

i agree...thats along the lines of what 'The Operational Art Of War' did.

Note: In TOAW or TOAW-'Century Of Warfare'...when one stacked his units...the stacked unit suffered in its health status (By Not being fully rested,...so, the more units that stacked...the less the total effectiveness of the stack that was)...and suffered more than the normal casualties as versus when being unstacked!.

That concept works just fine...if its right for the particular game.

[ June 24, 2004, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[pzgndr]

SC really needs something like this. I would really like to hear from Hubert or one of the other guys close to him on this issue.

It would be nice if the design had assumed corps-size units throughout, with some provision for combining units into armies and then being able to break them down again. But it didn't, and there were some decent reasons for this. Maybe Hubert will consider changes for some future game, but for now it's unlikely that we'll see any changes to the corps/army unit types.

In it's own abstract way, the game does recognize the difference between dense armies and dispersed corps. But with no build limits in SC1, this difference became blurred. Also, the research rules allowed all units to grow to higher unit strength based on tech advances and frontline units were allowed to reinforce to full strength each turn. These things all contributed to attrition situations that often seemed too static.

Some adjustments to the combat factors may help but this is difficult to quantify when you try to factor in experience, readiness, leadership bonuses, terrain effects, etc. There will be some adjustments here, but don't expect too much. Those other issues I mentioned above are likely to have greater impact:

- Corps/Army force pool limits (if used) will force players to carefully consider where to mass limited armies. New production delays will prevent immediate replacement of lost units.

- Elite reinforcements based on experience and reinforcement limits based on number of adjacent enemy units will prevent automatic max reinforcements on the frontline and force players to consider pulling key units back for refit.

- New morale rules will affect unit readiness.

- Being able to manually adjust HQ links will provide players with additional flexibility for massing combat power at key points.

- And more. :cool:

Bottom line is there are lots of subtle changes being made in SC2 which should help in the long run. We still need to playtest these ideas and make some adjustments as needed. Overall we're looking at a new game; very similar to SC1 but still new. Let's wait and see how well all of these changes taken collectively improve the game.

[ev]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

...It would be nice if the design had assumed corps-size units throughout, with some provision for combining units into armies and then being able to break them down again. But it didn't, and there were some decent reasons for this. Maybe Hubert will consider changes for some future game, but for now it's unlikely that we'll see any changes to the corps/army unit types.

...

Those other issues I mentioned above are likely to have greater impact:

- Corps/Army force pool limits (if used) will force players to carefully consider where to mass limited armies. New production delays will prevent immediate replacement of lost units.

- Elite reinforcements based on experience and reinforcement limits based on number of adjacent enemy units will prevent automatic max reinforcements on the frontline and force players to consider pulling key units back for refit.

- New morale rules will affect unit readiness.

- Being able to manually adjust HQ links will provide players with additional flexibility for massing combat power at key points.

- And more. :cool:

Bottom line is there are lots of subtle changes being made in SC2 which should help in the long run. We still need to playtest these ideas and make some adjustments as needed. Overall we're looking at a new game; very similar to SC1 but still new. Let's wait and see how well all of these changes taken collectively improve the game.

I like the new ideas. They are all very good. However, I am afraid they do not address my main concern. We need to be able to spread troops out to cover a wide front and then concentrate them at the precise moment and time to initiate an attack. In SC there is no such thing as concentrating and spreading. You either buy a dense concentrated army or a spred out thin Corps, and thereafter you can never spread and concentrate.

I hope Hubert will address this issue later on.

Now, back to my original topic. I hope there will be separate attack and defense strengths:

Hard Attack vs Hard Defense

Soft Attack vs. Soft Defense

I feel it is very important to model the fact that infantry is much better at defense than at offense while Armored Groups are good at both Defense and Ofense.

Any reactions?

[Edwin P.]

Now, back to my original topic. I hope there will be separate attack and defense strengths:

Hard Attack vs Hard Defense

Soft Attack vs. Soft Defense

S1 has this and SC2 will too. Its Soft Attack, Soft Defense, Armor Attack and Armor Defense.

I am confident that HC & company will see that these values are throughly play tested to ensure the most realistic results overall. I find it hard to comment on the realative values without playtesting as the game system has changed substantially from SC1 with the switch from hexes to tiles and the affects of adjacent enemy units on supply.

As Pzgndr said, I think that the new ability of HQs to select the units they will support will as you say - allow players to concentrate their offensive power at a selected point in the enemy line.

[pzgndr]

In SC there is no such thing as concentrating and spreading.

Oh sure there is! Where you position your Tank Groups, Armies, HQs, and AFs to support your main effort allows you to concentrate strategic combat power. Corps can provide economy of force elsewhere. Think strategically, rather than worrying about those 50-mile tiles/hexes.

If you play with new force pool limits, there will be some tougher decisions regarding where to concentrate and where to spread. AFs provide flexibility, and as Edwin also recognizes the new manual HQ linking provides additional flexibility. In the end, it will be your decisions pitted against your opponent's, clouded by FOW and uncertainty, that will result in victory or defeat in this game, yes?

[Exel]

Originally posted by ev:

Infantry was much better at defense than at offense. Infantry needs a three to one superiority to succesfully attack enemy infnatry. A two to one is a toss up. So infantry' soft defense should be twice its soft attack, unless the combat resolution engine already requires 2:1 odds for a succesfull attack.

Now that is horse ****. Most if not every study into WWI and WWII warfare have concluded that the attacker needed at least 2:1 odds to succeed with an unsupported frontal infantry attack against a qualitatively equal opponent. Of course, such attacks rarely occured after WWI with the advent of tanks, close support aircraft and more sensible tactics.

One of the top ranking annoyances for me in SC1 is the fact that the above does not apply in it. 2on1 attacks rarely produce any decisive results and more often than not you need to attack with 3:1 odds to achieve anything. I can't believe that someone wants it to be the same way in SC2. :mad:

[ev]

Exel, I am afraid you missunderstood my remarks.

First, I propose 2:1 odds for a 50% chance of success. I am not requiring 3:1 odds. If you read the table I prepared above you will notice I am proposing defense will be double the attack strength. But double the attack strength should not give you absolut certainty of success. In order to have absolute certainty of success you should require 3:1 odds.

A 2:1 advantage should give the attacker a 50-50 chance of success. This I understand is what WWII studies say ...or at least is what I remember from my readings of WWII. With a little bit of math, if the attacker needs 2:1 odds to match the defender then defense strength is twice attack strength, as per my tables above.

But 2:1 is the match ratio. 2:1 is an equal match between attacker and defender (in infantry). A match ration is not a superiority ratio. A match ratio is a 50% success ratio. A superiority ratiio is a 90% chance of success. 3:1 is a superiority ratio.

If you read carefully my comments above I mention that a 2:1 is a toss up (50% probability) and 3:1 assures a successfull attack (90% probability). I am not requiring 3:1 odds. On the contrary, I am saying that you may attack at 2:1 odds but you take a good chance you won't be successfull.

On the other hand, I noticed that you mention SC2 requires 3:1 odds for success. Are you sure about that? And, when some one says SC1 requires 3:1 odds, is this a match ratio or a superiority ration?

[Exel]

You should be able to achieve success with 1:1 odds as well. Because as I said, the 2:1 odds for success regarded unsupported frontal infantry attack[/], ie. WWI style. With better experience, leadership, air and/or armor support (=attacking unit is a tank group) and with not too penalizing terrain, success should be achieveable with numerically equal, and even with inferior force. 2:1 odds should be a 50-50 toss up only when all other circumstances are equal between the combatants. On the other hand, not even 3:1 odds should produce absolute superiority - just remember Italians versus British in North Africa or Soviets versus Finns in Karelia.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Before you guys get too much further down this path of ratios and what the effects are, a few things should be clarified.

You are trying to calculate combat power. And that is affected by training, leadership, doctrine, etc (the soft factors) as well as the hard factors (equipment).

In other words, if there was such a thing as a Italian infantry division armed with exactly the same equipment as an German infantry division, they would not have the same combat power.

The attackers and defenders combat power compared to each other are the ratios you are thinking about... 3:1, 2:1.

That way you avoid falling into the trap of thinking that if you have three times as many units as the defender, that you have a 3:1 combat ratio. You don't.