Aerial and naval bombardement error in most games and how to fix it for SC2.

[jahuu]

The same problem exists in every game of the General series, (Paner General, Pacific General, etc.), in Strategic Command 1 and in all, in every Grand Scope strategy game with the elements of bombardement.

The problem, of course, is that bombardement damage is in no way tied to the actual size of the unit. "It is easier to kill two guys from the pack of a hundred than from the group of three guys." Everybody knows that, it is just common sense.

The problem, albeit sounding like a minor one, is actually huge when it comes to grand strategic scale. Nothing beats that "killing the retreating unit with a fighter squadron" - tactic. It causes major unbalance, ahistoricism, illogicality and generally is an abuse of a horrendeous scale.

The solution is, naturally, to have the ranged attacks of units (Artillery barrages, rockets, bombers, naval bombardements...) decrease in effect, the smaller unit they attack.

So the damage of the bombing is, say, only 50% when the unit engaged is at 75% - 50% health, and something like 25% when under 50%. Also if stacking is a feature in SC2 (Stacking = having more than one division in the hex/province), the bombardement damage would be 150% or so.

I apologize if the matter has been adressed before, but better to be safe than sorry, right?

[pzgndr]

These are good points. If these games were in fact turn-based where all units move first, attacks are designated involving multiple units at one time, and rules limited air bombardment, then this wouldn't be an issue. In the old Third Reich series, you could not have a pure air attack. You had to have a supporting ground attack, and air could not be more than 3x the ground strength. Air power was more or less realistic.

The difference with games like PG and SC is that units move and attack individually and sequentially. The same rules that allow an air unit or two to provide reasonable supporting bombardment for one or more ground units during a single turn also allow for unreasonably massive air bombardments and kill shots. The dilemma for gamers is trying to reconcile how air attacks sequenced at the start of a battle are any different than those sequenced at the end, or as independent attacks. I don't see a good solution which would not unnecessarily restrict other supporting air attacks. (At least SC has air units return to base each turn, which was something I absolutely could not stand in PG!)

SC2 will offer some significant changes that should help overall. Carrier and Air Fleet combat will be separate, with different attack and defense values. Ground attacks should be moderated a bit to make air less omnipotent. And force pool limits should prevent the outrageous numbers of air units some players experience in their games. Combined, these should all help put air power back into its proper supporting role.

I suggest that air units in SC/SC2 be viewed in the overall context of what happens over the course of a full turn, and over a couple of turns. While a single air combat result may appear highly unrealistic at times, it is the overall application of combat power that should be judged. Consider Fall Gelb forces at start and again after France surrenders several turns later. The results are usually believable. Later, when some games diverge from history with these massive air forces, results become more incredible.

[SeaMonkey]

Ah Ha! An opportunity looms. Remember my suggestion about the random re-appearance of an eliminated ground unit due to local battlefield reorganization/recovery. The excellent point jahuu has made adds credibility to such a feature. Perhaps the reappearance feature should be connected by the algorithm ratio of the type of participating units in the battle. The more direct fire weaponry(infantry and tanks) involved in the battle the less chance an eliminated unit has to recover. The more indirect firepower from aerial, naval, and rocket bombardment the greater the chance of revival. Then again maybe the attacking player should be rewarded by conducting a more balanced "combined arms" configuration that precludes the recovery of the eliminated unit. The reappearance feature should only apply to infantry, paratroops, engineers, and to a lesser degree armored/motorized units. The re-emerging unit should suffer an automatic elimination if an enemy unit conducts an additional attack on that unit after reappearing or an infantry or armored unit moves adjacent to it, simulating an overrun. As Bill has stated this simulation is somewhat represented by the "retreat" feature in SC2, but this could be an enhancement of that effect and adds a tactical flavor to the SC battlefield.

[Shaka of Carthage]

While these points have been addressed in the past, in doesn't hurt to discuss them again.

The solution to the Air units has been hinted at in the past, but never really expanded upon. Fighters and Attack aircraft have different roles that we try to represent in SC by one (1) unit. Solve the problems this causes by making them seperate... FIGHTER unit for Fighters/Interceptors and an ATTTACK BOMBER unit for ground attack aircraft. The FIGHTER unit can operate as it does now in SC, with the major change being in how it damages ground units. The ATTACK BOMBER unit can be the one that does the damage to ground units.

Naval Bombardment is another problem that requires a different solution. Its not something that should be occuring, unless there is an amphibious assault.

While it is a true statement, that the density of a unit has an effect on the losses it suffers, I believe SC has already handled that by the different Attack:Defense ratios between the various combat units.

SeaMonkey, the concept of a "shattered" or "broken" unit is already handled in SC. I forget the exact terms Clash of Steel uses, but SC more or less follows the same design concept. When a unit is reduced to one (1) or two (2) strength points, it is "eliminated" (as an effective combat unit). While we still see it on the map, whats being modelled is the unit being broken and reappearing as a cadre. To rebuild the unit in that state, will cost you 47% (50% in COS) of its original cost. If you let that cadre unit fight again, you are having the same effect as your "additional attack ... or overrun". This is when the unit in SC goes away and for you to build it again, costs 100%.

The new "retreat" function in SC2, is really nothing more than the reduced cadre trying to save itself from elimination, something we couldn't control in SC2.

[SeaMonkey]

"If you let that cadre unit fight again, you are having the same effect as your "additional attack ... or overrun"."

Shaka you are implying that this is a voluntary decision of the owning player, when in actuality it is not,.... forgive me if I misunderstood. Now true to your point there will be restrictions on replacements/reinforcements for "broken" SC2 units. I have been a proponent of units being moved to a cadre box for replenishment, but like I said before I'm trying to capture the tactical battlefield, abstractly, in the game mechanics. In a weeks worth of fighting(SC gameturn) a unit could be subjected to numerous attacks as it retreats from the battlefield not necessarily at its option. The idea is to simulate the use of fast moving armored and motorized forces to move through a collapsed front, making deep penetrations and engage retreating disrupted units to finally eliminate them. Imagine several experienced, HQ supported SC armies coupled with air and rocket support breaking an opponents front lines, units retreat or destroyed. Sitting just behind these assaulting armies are the mechanized forces available to move through the opening with additional air and artillery(rocket) support, killing surviving, reappearing units as well as enemy HQs and support forces (air/rocket). Does this sound like the "Blitz" that we are familiar with in WW2?

[ January 10, 2005, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

But now we are talking about two different things. One being how to represent a combat unit that has received enough losses to become broken or shattered, second being how to represent a Blitzkrieg.

Most of us realize in theory, that a Blitskrieg is suppossed to represent you achieving a penetration of the enemies line, thru which mobile forces move, then attack the rear areas which are suppossed to paralyze the defenders because they no longer have any C&C, telling them what to do.

How players go about accomplishing the above, is why you constantly here recommendations for "artillery" units, ability to stack units and "why" Air units need to be able to eliminate ground units.

I see I am starting to ramble into more detail that I wanted. So let me just say that the above is part of the reason why I feel you cannot abstract the tactical battlefield by the mechanics you are decribing, rather you have to design for effect using abstract mechanics.

[SeaMonkey]

Fair enough Shaka, I see your point, but I still endeavor to create the condition, however abstracted, that accomplishes the mechanics of the tactical battlefield within the (scale)realm of SC. I'm not agreeing with you that they are separate, but inter-related, actually a result of the Blitzkrieg effect, ie. broken, disrupted units. The condition I describe above is not just for the attacker as I wish to also simulate the environment for the defender too. The idea has ambiguous possibilities as we are trying to simulate a condition that encompasses a large time period where many effects are possible. A successful Blitzkrieg should also realize that it will eventually run out of steam, or be contained to a certain extent(its own logistics), ie. the effect of re-emerging units setting up rear guard operations, as well as the meandering around of disoriented soldiers on a mass scale forming haphazard defenses(remember the B of the Bulge). Its like I have said before, a truly great strategic game captures the essence of the operational and tactical scales as well, albeit abstractly.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I understand.

I not sure I agree that it should be a goal of a "... truly great strategic game captures the essence of the operational and tactical scales as well, albeit abstractly".

Most designers (who don't fail miserably) end up with Strategical moves that are blown up versions of Operational moves (like the way you Blitz France in A3R).

But I would be more than happy to be proven wrong.

[Liam]

As I know it, Air, Navy never destroyed land units on Land. During D-Day after untold tons of bombs were dropped on the Jerrys, they still managed to come out with a significant force to counter the Allies with.

In the Pacific even with massive Naval Bombardment the Allies failed to destroy Japanese Garrisons entrenched upon various Islands. The other night I watched a show on the American Assualt on the Philipines and I heard a elder Soldier talking about the effects of naval bombardment. He was saying that the Navy men believe that bombarding land targets was like Naval ones, they were totally different. Very hard to get a beed on a land target and very hard to pulverize it. Naval Targets were quite easy, hit it and sink.

I doubt you could find too many cases of Artillery, Rockets or anything of the like disbanding Corps, Army, Panzer-tank size units.. Perhaps ships

[Exel]

I think the simplest solution to this would be to cap the damage inflicted by air/naval/rocket/etc bombardment. I don't know much about how the SC2 units really are modelled, but if we use SC units for reference, then the minimum strenght for ground units could be for example 3. Further bombardments would still reduce effectiveness and whatever but not strenght.