Retreat in Combat

[Mithel]

But now you are creating more programming work (having to identify if a unit is surrounded or not).

I would also alter your cut off for effective units so any unit of strength 3 or higher is sufficient to surround an enemy unit.

[pzgndr]

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.

Hey that's what grumpy old guys are here for!

Rather than the cadres showing up on the map, the virtual cadres are assumed to be forming the new units at reduced cost and build time. May not be perfect but works OK. Better than before in SC1 with no rebuild advantage.

Another retreat perspective is the old AH Russian Front game. In that game combat occurred in the hex. Encircled units could move to "attack", accept a soakoff loss, and continue to "retreat" through the encriclement lines and back into friendly territory. Point is there are many possibilities and hard to say what is "right" and "wrong" in a game design. If every game was the same, that wouldn't be very interesting.

[nomorebullshyt]

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.

"The Russian 4.Army retreats approximately 300 miles in 24 days." -

West Point Atlas Volume II

This is a quick check, in SC2 scale: 100 miles/week.

During the Napoleonic Wars that is reasonable march or retreat.

[Mithel]

I'm more used to thinking in terms of days rather than weeks.

I don't have my references at hand, but to the best of my recall, during the early years of the war an extremely fast advance was about 20 to 30 miles per day.

I would be careful about using values for an intentional retreat for a situation where the retreat is forced by combat.

SC2 is a very large scale, strategic game, I would be careful of introducing any "tactical" considerations to combat. I'm still not arguing that retreat combat results would not be an improvement, but just that making such changes may not be worth the developer's effort (too easy to introduce a side effect problem that is even worse).

[rich12545]

SC2 is semi abstract. It is not totally realistic. Compare to Empire Deluxe. Two armies fight. One is destroyed and one lives on. SC2 isn't that far abstract but it isn't totally realistic either. Compare units to TOAW where a division will list every squad and every weapon in the division. Whereas SC2 will give a number for strength and that's it. SC2 is a much simpler game than TOAW but more complex than ED. The trick is enjoying what it is instead of trying to make it into something it isn't.

[nomorebullshyt]

Hey that's what grumpy old guys are here for!

Rather than the cadres showing up on the map, the virtual cadres are assumed to be forming the new units at reduced cost and build time. May not be perfect but works OK. Better than before in SC1 with no rebuild advantage.

Another retreat perspective is the old AH Russian Front game. In that game combat occurred in the hex. Encircled units could move to "attack", accept a soakoff loss, and continue to "retreat" through the encriclement lines and back into friendly territory. Point is there are many possibilities and hard to say what is "right" and "wrong" in a game design. If every game was the same, that wouldn't be very interesting.

Yes, The Russian Campaign is a great classic board game.

I concede that the retreat idea has gained no support here. And I appreciate that such a routine would involve too much coding.

Returning to the issue I have with WaW is the Combat Result which you kindly noted here. Here is the breakdown:

A unit is "destroyed", in two weeks it returns to the Purchase Menu at a reduced price for a full strength (10) rebuild. That is a good game routine/feature. Rather than allowing the Combat Process force units into oblivion and reappear for rebuilding/reinforcing, it would be far better to "Shatter" the ground unit and have it reappear at the closest Headquarters or City to where the unit was "Shattered" by the enemy.

There are important benefits from my experiences with the game (SC2 and WaW):

1. The losing player would have a unit to garrison a city and/or add to it's perimeter.

2. The losing player might save points, depending on the reduced strength level of the "Shattered" unit, and possibly apply those points to Intel or Diplomacy etc.

3. Exceptions to this "Shattered unit retreat", would be ground units on islands...another?

4. The Shatter retreat process would also help to lighten the fantastic combat results when air and/or naval bombardments eliminate land units. <sigh>

*My gaming preference is SC2 over WaW...IMHO

[Mithel]

I'm a bit sloppy and usually write SC2 when I mean WaW.

As long as we are on the subject of modifying combat results, I think a modification that would be well worth doing would be to change air unit attacking ground units. An air unit should never be able to completely destroy a ground unit. I would propose any air attack by bombers or tactical air units should do only one point of damage (maximum) and the rest of the attack would be decreasing morale and readiness. So I unit could be bombed into being impotent but not able to be destroyed by air units alone. A fighter unit attacking should only lower morale and readiness.

[pzgndr]

An air unit should never be able to completely destroy a ground unit.

This keeps coming up also. Except for a high level air unit attacking a cheap corps someplace, it is rare for a single air unit attack to completely destroy a full strength ground unit. What we have in this game system of individual attacks is multiple sequential attacks culminating in a "kill shot" by one unit. Assuming multiple combined arms attacks, why not allow that air unit to destroy the ground unit? And if one air unit can inflict some damage, then multiple air attacks on a single target should also be able to inflict damage and perhaps completely destroy a unit with air attack alone. So what? If air assets are all being used on a few select targets then they are not being used elsewhere. And if there are too many air units or too many at high level, then that's another issue to consider.

This is just another case of focusing too closely on an individual combat and not liking the abstractions. So, don't focus too closely! Look at the bigger picture and see if overall results over time and across a theater are reasonable or not.

Going back to the 'ol Third Reich game, consider if 3 air fleets and an infantry were all attacking an enemy infantry at 3-1 odds and completely destroyed it. Who did that, just the infantry with some air support or maybe just the air units with some token infantry support? Who cares? In the course of that 3-month long seasonal turn you applied combat power to a battle and the results were what the were. Move on. See the forest, not the trees.

[Mithel]

An example of the situation I'm seeing would be three air units in England sequentially attack a German ground unit in France and completely destroy that ground unit. It "feels" wrong to have air power vaporizing "armies" without *any* ground combat.

I have no problem however if they reduced it's readiness to zero so that one tiny invading ground unit could assault it and destroy it.

In reality, infantry are particularly difficult to destroy from the air. You can pin them down and make them not want to come out of their foxholes, but they tend to be far too spread out for an air attack to eliminate them.

But yes, SC2 is a lot more fun if you just think of air units as one more tool you have to conduct the fight with. Let reality blur and enjoy the game.

[Bill101]

I think we'd actually find it more frustrating if a 1 strength unit couldn't be destroyed by air attacks.

I see a unit's destruction as representing the loss of its combat power, as it has effectively disintegrated and the survivors need to be taken out of the line, rested, re-equipped and reinforced by replacements from the depots. As a result it will be out of the war for a period of time, and that's the end result that this game gives us.

[Mithel]

I have the opposite point of view, as a defender I find it frustrating that an air unit can *destroy* that weak 1 or 2 strength point unit.

Overall I prefer realism and "realism" is more accurately portrayed by most often just weakening units not outright eliminating them. But without retreat we have to have elimination (or some stubborn 1 strength point unit will continue to hold some important position).

But these are minor quibbles with the SC2 design. A far more significant problem is how a unit goes from being impotent at the beginning, to god like after several tech advances. Air power can't do this sort of destruction at the beginning of the war (in fact it's lucky to even scratch an enemy unit), but at the end of the war using air power to vaporize units becomes the preferred form of ground combat.

[arado234]

Mithel while it is true that an air unit maxed out can cause some serious damage but since this game is a balancing act between''realism''and abstract(the closet ''realism''

game ive ever played is squad leader and there is no way you could do that to any strategic WW2 game)then planes being able to''wipeout''a unit(imho)isnt that big a deal.Remember we all have the same atvantages and disatvantages.

A unit being impotent then becoming god like with tech.upgrades does make some sense.Just think how god like a bunch of king tigers would have been in the French campaign.It is possible for that to happen(but highly unlikely).if you send in a bunch of maxed out tech.planes or tanks against an enemy who doesnt have any tech.in that or anyother dept.then you would have god like ability against them.Imagine me262s in 1940 against England.

[Mithel]

Comparing early war individual weapons to late war weapons does result in some impressive contrasts. But SC2 is a strategic game, a unit represents a corp or army not an individual weapon system. Even partisans found ways to knock out Tigers.

And the real problem is not that a 1939 division would be wiped off the map by a 1945 division but rather that two 1939 divisions can scratch each other but two 1945 divisions annihilate each other.

Nobody will argue that an early war Stuka is seriously inferior to a late war Fw-190 equipped for ground attack, but the actual destructive ability didn't change all that much (nowhere near like it does in SC2) .

[nomorebullshyt]

I think we'd actually find it more frustrating if a 1 strength unit couldn't be destroyed by air attacks.

I see a unit's destruction as representing the loss of its combat power, as it has effectively disintegrated and the survivors need to be taken out of the line, rested, re-equipped and reinforced by replacements from the depots. As a result it will be out of the war for a period of time, and that's the end result that this game gives us.

I appreciate the abstractions of the "unit destroyed" routine in the game. I am encouraged that there is some agreement here. But, it is not logical for the remnant of an

Army of Corps to goto an alternate reality, the basis of the unit remains. Rather than have it go off board, my view is that when it is "eliminated" or rather shattered, the remnants of the ground units should merely be routed into the zone of the nearest Hq or friendly City of national origin (supply source), i.e. a destroyed German shattered in Russia would reappear in Greater Germany or German proper.

The oddity of a Aussie or S.African unit shattered in Africa and rebuilding in Britain makes my case most clear. The remnant ought to show itself immediately in a secure Commonwealth held rear area in the Middle East theater.

Treating the unit this way keeps it real and "in the game" as a remnant occupying a real place on the map rather than disappearing into the build menu.

[nomorebullshyt]

This keeps coming up also. Except for a high level air unit attacking a cheap corps someplace, it is rare for a single air unit attack to completely destroy a full strength ground unit. What we have in this game system of individual attacks is multiple sequential attacks culminating in a "kill shot" by one unit. Assuming multiple combined arms attacks, why not allow that air unit to destroy the ground unit? And if one air unit can inflict some damage, then multiple air attacks on a single target should also be able to inflict damage and perhaps completely destroy a unit with air attack alone. So what? If air assets are all being used on a few select targets then they are not being used elsewhere. And if there are too many air units or too many at high level, then that's another issue to consider.

This is just another case of focusing too closely on an individual combat and not liking the abstractions. So, don't focus too closely! Look at the bigger picture and see if overall results over time and across a theater are reasonable or not.

Going back to the 'ol Third Reich game, consider if 3 air fleets and an infantry were all attacking an enemy infantry at 3-1 odds and completely destroyed it. Who did that, just the infantry with some air support or maybe just the air units with some token infantry support? Who cares? In the course of that 3-month long seasonal turn you applied combat power to a battle and the results were what the were. Move on. See the forest, not the trees.

Combined arms attacks on ground units is understandable as a way to annihilate a ground unit. Combined arms attacks should always have a bonus in attacks, don't know it there is such a bonus. But, Bomber and Tactical Air sorties should in no way be able to eliminate a ground unit. That was a fact proven by World War 2. Air force alone cannot vanquish the enemy any where any time; i.e. Berlin, London, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Operation Goodwood, Casino, Malta etc.

[Mithel]

SC2 doesn't have "combined arms" at all since there is no stacking and all movement and combat is sequential. Certainly this is a weakness in the game design. What SC2 really has is more of a "rock, paper, scissors" approach.

I'm not bothered by unit's going to "alternate reality" as much as by abstractions like Polish resources contributing to British production and British production points being used for Polish production. Or perhaps worse yet, German technology and production able to make high quality Bulgarian units, near the end of the game, yet Italy still struggling badly to build the same garbage units they had at the start of the war.

[SeaMonkey]

Disagree Mithel, the very nature of SC sequential combat mechanics dictate a combined arms approach.

But I will agree with your R,P,S conclusion, simple, but effective gameplay, like chess, but a lot more under the hood.

Just remember our AI crowd, any complication results in a more inefficient AI logic pattern. The AI thrives on KISS!

It ain't all about you.

[arado234]

Alot of what has been brought up here about Planes being able to kill a unit etc are in reality not possible but since this game isnt based totaly on reality then having some unhistorical abilities maybe isnt such a bad thing(both sides have the same atvantage).As it is now Allied industrial might is no where near what is was in reality because if it was then this game would be prettywell pointless.The fact that France and England in 1940 can launch a full scale invasion when the had virtually no invasion barges is unhistorical.Invading at all shouldnt be allowed techincally when you consider its possible to invade with many Armies which could add up to close to a million men.NO ONE had the invasion barges to do that. How far to we want to go in making things more realistic?

[scottsmm]

I say leave it the way it is, I don't want to have to adjust from launching a major D Day offensive, to launching some 150,000 man raid on Europe. Not to mention it would begin to complicate a game in which simplicity is its best virtue.

[zukkov]

it's a great game. any game that has me nashing my teeth and cursing at the computer is a winner! :-p

[Mithel]

Actually the game does have a built in design that deters massive invasions early in the game: the cost of doing amphibious.

The economy certainly could use improvement so the Allies start out with weak production but then become quite overwhelming as the years pass. It's still not bad though and Germany is in serious trouble if they don't knock out Russia.

How far should the game developers go in implementing realism? As far as possible! For me the only thing that should make them even hesitate is if the realism comes at a horrible cost in playability. There should always be a lot of effort put into keeping the user interface easy to use and if possible additional detailed features might be optional so those that don't want them don't have to have them.

There are a lot of features that could be implemented that don't make the game more difficult:

* Air units checking and not destroying the last point of a unit (or better yet only doing one point of damage for each attack)

* Higher initial cost for conducting amphibious operations and a clear notification to the player that they need to research this technology before doing such operations becomes feasible. Or a simple counter that limits the number of units that can go into amphibious mode at any one time.

* Fine tuning the economy

[nomorebullshyt]

First of all I have been play testing the game in multiplayer, solo and with an opponent.

Originally I proposed a retreat in combat for land and sea. The critical issue for land units is that they disappear into the build menu. This absence of a remnant unit from the battlefield creates such a void that it cascades into a strategic collapse in Africa, Middle east and Russia.

The "Retreat in Combat" is not the main idea, although in naval affairs there can be a debate. But in land combat, my proposed change, is that eliminated units ought to show up on the battlefield the following turn (1 - 3 strength possibly) and at the closest city or Hq from where the defeat took place. This will force the Axis to build more land units to cover the front.

This in fact will improve play balance, add realism and free up Mp from rebuilding a remnant from the build menu for other uses i.e. Diplomacy etc. (where the going is tight). The player will have the option to Reinforce, Upgrade or move the unit next turn. As opposed to the unit disappearing into the builds menu and if rebuilt (at full strength) to reappear two turns later which for some theaters already means that theater is already doomed or lost.

Of course this improvement will enable to code writer(s) to fix the relocation of "foreign unit losses" such as Aussies, S.Africans, Canadians, etc. from finding themselves in the UK.

*I am a veteran of War In Russia, Third Reich, hitlers War and

Clash of Steel... I am only here to seek to make this a better game. My proposal for the relocation of eliminated ground units to a friendly city or Hq is not willy nilly. I have surrendered the idea of Retreat in Combat to the Relocation of destoyed ground units.

[Mithel]

Interesting idea. I see some possible issues. What if the city is already occupied? This could be too much work to program as we have no idea if the city would be very close to the front line or far back. And there is the potential that the "nearest" city might actually result in an illogical relocation to the other side of a front (such as in North Africa).

I find the design of the game as it is now basically emphasizes always garrisoning cities.

Give the latest version of "Hearts of Iron" a try. I'd be curious what your impression is.

[nomorebullshyt]

Interesting idea. I see some possible issues. What if the city is already occupied? This could be too much work to program as we have no idea if the city would be very close to the front line or far back. And there is the potential that the "nearest" city might actually result in an illogical relocation to the other side of a front (such as in North Africa).

I find the design of the game as it is now basically emphasizes always garrisoning cities.

Give the latest version of "Hearts of Iron" a try. I'd be curious what your impression is.

The game does have grid coordinates that would give the engine search ability for a city.

If the closest city is occupied, then unit goes adjacent to that city, preferably the far side.

I do not understand why such a process would be an issue?

I've dedicated too many hours to Waw...I have one PBEM to finish...

Will test drive "Hearts" soon...

[Mithel]

Concepts like "far side" are trivial for the human mind, but require coding complexity for a computer program to handle.

Another example would be a battle on an island, now try to apply your "retreat" concept. Do the retreating units magically get evacuated from the island? Or say the Brits are pushed out of their last city in North Africa, is the next closest city London?

Cool... let me know what you think of HoI.