Retreat in Combat

[nomorebullshyt]

Sorry to repost "SC2 Issue" but "Issue" is too vague:

I am disappointed to see, in WAW, that units do not retreat especially in hopeless situations. Historically, that is not the norm in reality or historically.

Since I'm a new poster here, maybe this issue has already been addressed.

If not it does deserve attention since it will create great replay value to this potentially great game. It is the Retreat in Combat that holds SC2 back from being a great game.

Game wise, in time the player community will eventually know the combinations needed to Win, win and win since there is no variable Retreat in Combat.

Thank you.

nomorebullshyt aka Bear on the Blitz

[arado234]

Its been talked about but the way this game represnts it is the cheaper cost of building back the unit that was wiped out,provided it was in a supply of 5 or more.I like idea in that the unit if its possible should retreat.

[Mithel]

(re-posting from the other thread):

It is a bit odd at first to not have retreats, but I consider this a minor point and very far from being the most important factor that could be worked on for future improvements.

Adding retreat would be a lot of programming work and potentially cause a lot of problems. It's better if the defender who loses has to make the decision themselves whether a retreat is desirable or not. If you want a more "tactical" game, then redesign a scenario with 3 day turns and let each player make their own decisions about retreat.

[nomorebullshyt]

The "Bloody" Combat Results Table(s) used in SC2/WAW tanscends more than the battlefield. The focus is on the game engine acitivities, not what players do if they survive an attack:

Aside from the realism or simulation aspect of a unit taking blow after blow from air, sea, land units and a follow up exploitation attack is, with all due respect to all the crew that put this game together, a "dumbing down" of the inherent commanders and the instinct of survival in the face of utter annihilation.

If defending units are given and alternative to "stand fast and die" a CRT would be required to do this. A CRT that will cause defenders to retreat, attackers to retreat, a "Shatter" result taking a unit off the board immediately and it reappears the following build phase at a nearby HQ and/or city. These possible results coupled of course with the same variable step losses will benefit the game tremendously. For those units not destroyed will not have to be bought new and MPPS would then be available to stimulate more political activities, R&D etc.

Unfortunately, all important tasks involve work and dedication. Working the game code can be a bear, but most of us here understand the "labors of love" when it comes to our war gaming hobby and business.

Strategic Command 2 and WaW offers many good features and I'm in the midst of a PBEM now, after multiple solo drives with the game engine.

Thank you for reading/listening...

Bear at the Blitz

[SeaMonkey]

On the contrary nomoreBS, I think it behooves a commander, the SC player, to be intelligent enough to notice which of his units are exposed to an overpowering assault.

Now if you can recognize the potential, then of course the game mechanics allow you to design a remedy. Of course if you fail to observe the obvious then "voila", your unit(s) pay the consequences. Now that they have been relegated to combat ineffectiveness by their commander's oversight is it so unusual that the core cadre has a chance to reform, re-equip and retrain its ranks, back in its homeland?

Seems....perhaps...maybe...your point..is just a matter of perspective.

[Mithel]

I think it is just a matter of perspective. In reality losses aren't as harsh as they are in games. And SC2 is a very "bloody" game with high losses. In most situations a combat unit will retreat rather than be decimated, it shouldn't require "manual" intervention.

But SC2 is a very simple design and more of a "game" than a simulation. Thus I'd argue that there are far more important ideas to work on than implementing retreat.

[nomorebullshyt]

On the contrary nomoreBS, I think it behooves a commander, the SC player, to be intelligent enough to notice which of his units are exposed to an overpowering assault.

Now if you can recognize the potential, then of course the game mechanics allow you to design a remedy. Of course if you fail to observe the obvious then "voila", your unit(s) pay the consequences. Now that they have been relegated to combat ineffectiveness by their commander's oversight is it so unusual that the core cadre has a chance to reform, re-equip and retrain its ranks, back in its homeland?

Seems....perhaps...maybe...your point..is just a matter of perspective.

I am referring to the game Strategic Command + WaW. In this game the player moves units to and fro. With Fog of War, combat results or even probabilities of combat or contact in that move or the next players move. Then we have Headquarters with "field commanders" that may or may not be involved with a combat situation; only to add their respective factors to the combat. Contact made with units coming out of the fog of war is a form of limited intelligence. Therefore, it is illogical to assume that a player's intelligence is to blame for enemy units and subsequent combat when the enemy units, strength, inherent modifiers, their HQ modifiers, air support, CVs, ships, artillery etc are not there or were not there before contact.

That is why I started this dialogue. Here is a good analogy: We are in a rifle company with one hundred men. We start the week in good order and dug in.

Suddenly we are hit with aerial bombs and a nasty artillery barrage...poof thirty of our boys are done and many wounded some in shock. Now we see enemy infantry approach with tank support, ready for an attack. How long do we hold out for this WEEK? Stand and die? Or does our Sergeant tell us to bug out, since the Lieutenant is already dead...?

I appreciate and enjoy the fog of war feature. It is my view that the game doesn't provide us with an AI that will make some command and control If/Then decisions when units are hit over and over again in one turn.

The remedy is to modify the CRT, there are D6, D8, D10 and D20 Combat Results Tables that are not convoluted excercises for Code writers. The Retreat parameters are key elements for the job. I'm not a code writer, I used to deal with em but don't have the knowledge. I believe that when a unit suffers 30 - 40% losses it should slip into the probabilities of the Retreat line. Given the scope of SC, land units would have to retreat two and maybe suffer another hit in doing so, a 50% probability. If the CRT were to have a unit Shattered result, then the unit would leave the field and then show up at the nearest City in the following turn with a low randomized strength. That is an alternative to a Unit Destroyed result, when that unit is wiped out completely and returns to the Purchase Pool.

nobs

[Mithel]

This is a good point that a unit may be hit by several enemy units in a turn and thus the player does not have an opportunity to retreat themselves.

However the scale of the game is far different than the example of an infantry company "bugging out". If I'm an army commander (remember SC2 units are *several* divisions) and I've been ordered to hold "Minsk" then I'm not going to "bug out" at the first sign of a strong enemy force coming to assault my positions.

From a code development point of view, it's trivial to make the combat result table and determine *when* to retreat, but it's a lot more work to determine *where* to retreat. Other confounding factors make this less than trivial. If my force is nicely entrenched in a city do I really want to retreat into the "open" where the enemy can follow up with their next attack and easily destroy my force?

[nomorebullshyt]

This is a good point that a unit may be hit by several enemy units in a turn and thus the player does not have an opportunity to retreat themselves.

However the scale of the game is far different than the example of an infantry company "bugging out". If I'm an army commander (remember SC2 units are *several* divisions) and I've been ordered to hold "Minsk" then I'm not going to "bug out" at the first sign of a strong enemy force coming to assault my positions.

From a code development point of view, it's trivial to make the combat result table and determine *when* to retreat, but it's a lot more work to determine *where* to retreat. Other confounding factors make this less than trivial. If my force is nicely entrenched in a city do I really want to retreat into the "open" where the enemy can follow up with their next attack and easily destroy my force?

Ok, the infantry company, 100 men, example was for easy % idea. If your Corps in Minsk losses 30 - 40% you're in trouble. Sometimes it is better to live and fight another day. Other times the death and annihilation of a formation will serve us well. That, of course, suggests another game option: "Hold Fast" or "Stand to the Last Man" which is how SC2 is now. It there is a remnant when your turn comes then that is a good thing.

[Mithel]

I agree it's a problem.

But in reality, if a division lost 10% strength in a week it would be a *serious* concern (probably motivating a retreat). Real combat is *rarely* as bloody as in games.

But with the huge scale of SC2 is it reasonable to have entire armies (4 to 6 divisions) retreat hundreds of miles in a turn (week)?

[nomorebullshyt]

I agree it's a problem.

But in reality, if a division lost 10% strength in a week it would be a *serious* concern (probably motivating a retreat). Real combat is *rarely* as bloody as in games.

But with the huge scale of SC2 is it reasonable to have entire armies (4 to 6 divisions) retreat hundreds of miles in a turn (week)?

I do not know the map scale of the game?

[Mithel]

The manual indicates the scale is about 50 miles (I think that's on the low side), but it's going to depend a *lot* on whether you are playing just in Europe or if you are playing the Global campaign.

So I'm stretching it too much when I say "hundreds" of miles and should have said "dozens" of miles. But still, retreating even 50 miles is a *huge* retreat.

[pzgndr]

And SC2 is a very "bloody" game with high losses... But SC2 is a very simple design and more of a "game" than a simulation. Thus I'd argue that there are far more important ideas to work on than implementing retreat.

This is an important point. It's a game. The other thread haggling about what specific tanks or airplanes represent each tech level and whether their appearance is historical or not is just getting down into weeds that don't mean anything. It's not a simulation.

As a game it's fun and there's adequate WWII historical flavor. IMHO, one way around the "bloody" combat results associated with the high tech levels is to restrict research to just a couple levels or not have any research at all. #1 reason being there is no "relative difference" calculated between attacker and defender tech levels. Both loss calculations account for increasing tech levels for either side, which both increase over the course of a game, but do not cancel themselves out. Thus two L5 units will beat the heck out of each other worse than two L0 units will, whereas intuitively you might think the results should be more consistent?

[nomorebullshyt]

The manual indicates the scale is about 50 miles (I think that's on the low side), but it's going to depend a *lot* on whether you are playing just in Europe or if you are playing the Global campaign.

So I'm stretching it too much when I say "hundreds" of miles and should have said "dozens" of miles. But still, retreating even 50 miles is a *huge* retreat.

OK, we're good with 50 miles/click, not unrealistic for a few days retreat.

I forget, whether tis 25 miles/day for normal infantry march...I think that's close enough. Then a 50 mile retreat is not far out, a 100 mile or two click retreat in haste is feasible with a step loss due to the route. Not over the rainbow to me.

Considering the scale of the Global game, then an abstract retreat where the unit drops off the field and reappears at the nearest friendly HQ, City or Port would satisfy the units Retreat/Route with a step loss for the endeavor.

I've attached a copy of one or possibly the first Combat Results Tables ever for perusal and reference. There are many others that fit the game scale of SC2/WaW such as the games Pearl Harbor/Games Design Workshop and Third Reich/Avalon Hill. These would fit nicely into the SC2 game.

I (we) can discharge all the email here and there. I only want to see SC2 incorporate an improvement to the combat routine with a variable result in the form of a retreat or shatter result. The status quo of Stand and Die on the land and sea combat works fine for many gamers. I am here only to try to cheer on SC2 players and the SC2 Team to the next level of development which would not add complication to game play.

[nomorebullshyt]

Original from boardgame, DDAY Avalon Hill circa 1960's

[Mithel]

pzgndr, I agree the tech advance system is too crude and bloody for my preferences. I would like more steps and yet not have it become so bloody. Certainly weapon systems became more lethal as the war progressed, but tactics adjusted too (historically as firepower has increased the density of combatants has decreased). I'm not aware of any huge change in loss rates from the beginning of the war to the end of the war. In fact look at the early campaigns.... Poland, France, Barbarossa... huge enemy forces were defeated very rapidly. If anything (at least in Europe) the results at the end of the war were less "bloody". Air bombing might be an exception as the larger bombers delivered larger bomb loads and wreaked incredible destruction on the German cities (but that was also due to *more* bombers).

I'll always be a little "disagreeable" because SC2 is designed as a game and what I desire is a simulation.

[Razz1]

If the impact of tech is that bad on losses, then we need to mod it adjust the max. tech allowed.

That is the same combat table that AH uses with Battle of Gettysburg.

[Mithel]

The problem with modding max tech to keep combat reasonable is that by maxing out techs at say only two levels a huge portion of the game (R&D) has been lost. And that also tends to mean that all nations will have roughly equivalent tech levels.

[nomorebullshyt]

This is an important point. It's a game. The other thread haggling about what specific tanks or airplanes represent each tech level and whether their appearance is historical or not is just getting down into weeds that don't mean anything. It's not a simulation.

As a game it's fun and there's adequate WWII historical flavor. IMHO, one way around the "bloody" combat results associated with the high tech levels is to restrict research to just a couple levels or not have any research at all. #1 reason being there is no "relative difference" calculated between attacker and defender tech levels. Both loss calculations account for increasing tech levels for either side, which both increase over the course of a game, but do not cancel themselves out. Thus two L5 units will beat the heck out of each other worse than two L0 units will, whereas intuitively you might think the results should be more consistent?

The issue of Bloody results addresses the point I make here.

The combat "reality" of SC2 is:

A unit is portrayed as lame and ignorant. It will sit in the battlefield and take air strikes, artillery, armor attacks, lose 30, 40, 50% of strength even before the enemy tanks and infantry have begun their work. No problem, that unit will sit, and sit and sit and get wiped out. And then rebuilt from scratch next week and wait weeks or months to see it again. The Combat result not only effects the situation on the map, that destroyed unit will now suck up MPPs on the Purchase schedule along with it's "lost" upgrades in tech.

It is not a question of Game versus Simulation. I consider the idea of retreat in combat as a fundamental feature of war gaming. If the relatively simplistic board game of forty years ago demonstrates that combat will cause units to retreat just as in real combat then shouldn't a computer game in 2009 offer the same?

A retreat probability will remedy all the differences in weapons technologies that have just been mentioned in this thread.

[nomorebullshyt]

pzgndr, I agree the tech advance system is too crude and bloody for my preferences. I would like more steps and yet not have it become so bloody. Certainly weapon systems became more lethal as the war progressed, but tactics adjusted too (historically as firepower has increased the density of combatants has decreased). I'm not aware of any huge change in loss rates from the beginning of the war to the end of the war. In fact look at the early campaigns.... Poland, France, Barbarossa... huge enemy forces were defeated very rapidly. If anything (at least in Europe) the results at the end of the war were less "bloody". Air bombing might be an exception as the larger bombers delivered larger bomb loads and wreaked incredible destruction on the German cities (but that was also due to *more* bombers).

I'll always be a little "disagreeable" because SC2 is designed as a game and what I desire is a simulation.

Please read Post #19. I think it offers food for thought...

Thank you

[Mithel]

I disagree that adding retreat to combat results would solve the problem of tech upgrades creating absurdly bloody combat results.

I also disagree that on a one week scale a combat force as large as an army could / would respond to the approach and engagement of superior enemy forces and be able to organize a retreat of 50 miles or more (keep in mind that because of the sequential usage of units a defending unit might be hit multiple times in a single turn, if each of those times resulted in a retreat that unit might be driven back say 150 miles (three retreats) which is completely absurd.

Now that I'm thinking about these issues, I think a better solution would be to dramatically increase the cost of reinforcing units (and building new units) while at the same time reducing losses in combat significantly. Unfortunately this does tend to mean a fairly substantial redesign of the game, it couldn't be done very well by just modding.

[pzgndr]

It is not a question of Game versus Simulation. I consider the idea of retreat in combat as a fundamental feature of war gaming. If the relatively simplistic board game of forty years ago demonstrates that combat will cause units to retreat just as in real combat then shouldn't a computer game in 2009 offer the same?

Maybe, it depends on the system. I would not claim retreat is a must-have fundamental feature for every game. My all-time favorite AH Third Reich board game had no retreat or step-loss feature; the CRT was either AE, DE or exchange with no in-between. Combat results were HEAVILY abstracted and unrealistic, and yet the overall ebb and flow of the game managed to be a pretty good simulation of the ETO struggle.

A retreat probability will remedy all the differences in weapons technologies that have just been mentioned in this thread.

All? No, you need to go back and read again what I wrote about the loss calculations. But even if all these things were "fixed", ie revised calculations and introduction of retreats, all you do is move the goalposts for this game and then begin to argue about the limitations on unit types and force pools and other issues. Like no stacking, no combined arms odds-based attacks, etc. etc. It remains a game and not a simulation.

I have been relatively happy with recent game results from my A3R mod as far as that overall ebb and flow of the game is concerned. Individual combats remain abstract, but results over time appear fairly historical and realistic. See, this is the beauty of the Editor and ability to mod the campaigns. Players can make adjustments to achieve more of a simulation effect, or add more flexibility for a wilder game. :cool:

[nomorebullshyt]

Maybe, it depends on the system. I would not claim retreat is a must-have fundamental feature for every game. My all-time favorite AH Third Reich board game had no retreat or step-loss feature; the CRT was either AE, DE or exchange with no in-between. Combat results were HEAVILY abstracted and unrealistic, and yet the overall ebb and flow of the game managed to be a pretty good simulation of the ETO struggle.

All? No, you need to go back and read again what I wrote about the loss calculations. But even if all these things were "fixed", ie revised calculations and introduction of retreats, all you do is move the goalposts for this game and then begin to argue about the limitations on unit types and force pools and other issues. Like no stacking, no combined arms odds-based attacks, etc. etc. It remains a game and not a simulation.

I have been relatively happy with recent game results from my A3R mod as far as that overall ebb and flow of the game is concerned. Individual combats remain abstract, but results over time appear fairly historical and realistic. See, this is the beauty of the Editor and ability to mod the campaigns. Players can make adjustments to achieve more of a simulation effect, or add more flexibility for a wilder game. :cool:

Thank you pzgndr. Your reference to the ol "Third Reich" does cause me to recall how well it played. The retreat in combat may not be the main issue. It is the void created when a unit disappears. It is most noticeable in the Russian Front play balance. Rather than having a "destroyed" unit disappear for a turn and show up as a build. I believe it would be better for it to reappear in the next turn either adjacent to a HQ or in or about a city, within 'x' number of spaces from the space where the unit was shattered. The cadre and remnants of such units should, in my view, still be present somewhere and in some form (reduced strength of course) on the map.

Thank you pzgdr

[Mithel]

Then how would you simulate encircling and capturing units? (which results in the loss of the cadre and leaves nothing to rebuild)

[nomorebullshyt]

Then how would you simulate encircling and capturing units? (which results in the loss of the cadre and leaves nothing to rebuild)

If the surrounded unit is cut off by units with strength at 7+ then the unit is toast and goes off to rebuild menu.

If the unit is cut off by enemies with strength 6-. Then if it is destroyed (shattered) then remnants would reappear at a randomized strength (1; 2; or 3 randomized) logically at or about the nearest friendly HQ or City. This remnant would be on the following losing player "Units Arrived" meunu or be assigned by the AI to the nearest HQ or city, and that too can be randomized.