New Battle engine

Acheron · 16-04-2007, 21:44

Although I do not really understand how the current engine for calculating the land battles work, I nevertheless suggest something new (

)
I do NOT suggest that the player should do any commanding during the battle!

What I suggest
instead of randomly detemrining who shots at who, it should become largely dependant on the leader's (relative) skill of what divisions face each other.
If the attacker is higher skilled, his tanks will face against enemy vanilla infantry or militia, smash them and thus get the attacker a breakthrough or encirclement event, for as long as it takes the defender to bring up reinforcments to contain the breach. This time would of course depend on the reserves speed, relative to the intruder, making speed important for battles, too.
But if the defemnder is higher skilled, the attacking tanks will face defending infantry with AT brigades, thus making these maybe more worthwhile.
I guess you get what I mean, basically, the commander with the higher effective skill gets to choose mroe engagements. With both commanders equal, each would (on the average) choose half of each forces to face one another, each of course taking the preferred combination for himself.
Note that I wrote about "effective" skill. With this I meant that things as being outnumbered should play a role on the efefctive skill for that battle. Same as for river crossing, or attacking urban areas, amphibious assaults, tanks in plains, etc. Such situations would give one of the sides a boon or a malus.

What do you people think?

Cardenas · 17-04-2007, 20:08

Yeah.........I suppose you could break this down even further, by doing it so there are several skills to each commander.........such as:

MIXED Units - where the commander is good at using tanks infantry and even air and artiliary for full and maximum effect. This could be like you said, if the defenders had AT, a nit of infantry would be used to attack that.
USE OF ARTILIARY - How well the commander uses artiliary. He could use it to pound the enemy to the ground, then go in with foot troops. When this skill develops more, he uses it more effectively as a support to advancing or retreating troops, aswell as targetting it to a specific area (back to the AT brigade).
ARMOUR - How well the commander uses tanks/APC/etc. The higher this is, the better the tactics used by the armour.
INFANTRY - This would improve the infantry tactics and the overall tactics. It would improve chances of things like encirclement etc.
COMMUNICATION - This would improve the rate org drops, and it would also improve the way different units are used, their speed and response time as theywill be in better communication to the commander.
STEALTH - This would improve the chance of taking the enemy by complete surprise (what I think should be another factor in the battles anyway, causing HUGE org and strength losses whilst lasting for a long time). It would also increase chances of surprise, ambush etc. and increase different tactics such as how likely an armoured division is likely to survive in the open desert against an air attack.
INTELLIGENCE - This would improve how the units attack, and would also introduce another new event (I think it's new) DIVERSION. Like the Brits did in the desert by dressing trucks up as armour and stuff. It would also improve the units attacking and stuff.....and their chances of different events.

These can have their own skill points, which the commanders learn over different battles. Each different skill can be a percentage of getting the next point in that skill. Say a max of 10 points per skill, each point increasing/changing the effects of the skill. There are obviously more........I just couldn't think of them

16-04-2007, 21:44	#1
Acheron General Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Near Munich Posts: 1,805	New Battle engine Although I do not really understand how the current engine for calculating the land battles work, I nevertheless suggest something new ( ) I do NOT suggest that the player should do any commanding during the battle! What I suggest instead of randomly detemrining who shots at who, it should become largely dependant on the leader's (relative) skill of what divisions face each other. If the attacker is higher skilled, his tanks will face against enemy vanilla infantry or militia, smash them and thus get the attacker a breakthrough or encirclement event, for as long as it takes the defender to bring up reinforcments to contain the breach. This time would of course depend on the reserves speed, relative to the intruder, making speed important for battles, too. But if the defemnder is higher skilled, the attacking tanks will face defending infantry with AT brigades, thus making these maybe more worthwhile. I guess you get what I mean, basically, the commander with the higher effective skill gets to choose mroe engagements. With both commanders equal, each would (on the average) choose half of each forces to face one another, each of course taking the preferred combination for himself. Note that I wrote about "effective" skill. With this I meant that things as being outnumbered should play a role on the efefctive skill for that battle. Same as for river crossing, or attacking urban areas, amphibious assaults, tanks in plains, etc. Such situations would give one of the sides a boon or a malus. What do you people think? __________________ Let airplanes attack individual provinces Let ships block specific habours Fix the bug with Nat Chin leaders after Jap wins, namely that releasing Nat China via event makes them have NO leaders at all Fix the bug with Mussolini's Socialist Italy being neutral, instead of being in the axis and at war with allies

17-04-2007, 20:08	#2
Cardenas Sergeant Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: You tell me??? Posts: 58	Yeah.........I suppose you could break this down even further, by doing it so there are several skills to each commander.........such as: MIXED Units - where the commander is good at using tanks infantry and even air and artiliary for full and maximum effect. This could be like you said, if the defenders had AT, a nit of infantry would be used to attack that. USE OF ARTILIARY - How well the commander uses artiliary. He could use it to pound the enemy to the ground, then go in with foot troops. When this skill develops more, he uses it more effectively as a support to advancing or retreating troops, aswell as targetting it to a specific area (back to the AT brigade). ARMOUR - How well the commander uses tanks/APC/etc. The higher this is, the better the tactics used by the armour. INFANTRY - This would improve the infantry tactics and the overall tactics. It would improve chances of things like encirclement etc. COMMUNICATION - This would improve the rate org drops, and it would also improve the way different units are used, their speed and response time as theywill be in better communication to the commander. STEALTH - This would improve the chance of taking the enemy by complete surprise (what I think should be another factor in the battles anyway, causing HUGE org and strength losses whilst lasting for a long time). It would also increase chances of surprise, ambush etc. and increase different tactics such as how likely an armoured division is likely to survive in the open desert against an air attack. INTELLIGENCE - This would improve how the units attack, and would also introduce another new event (I think it's new) DIVERSION. Like the Brits did in the desert by dressing trucks up as armour and stuff. It would also improve the units attacking and stuff.....and their chances of different events. These can have their own skill points, which the commanders learn over different battles. Each different skill can be a percentage of getting the next point in that skill. Say a max of 10 points per skill, each point increasing/changing the effects of the skill. There are obviously more........I just couldn't think of them __________________ I am not stupid, I just act like it until I'm powerful enough that I don't need to be smart.