Suggestion for a new battle system

[Acheron]

While I don't want the player to micromanage the battles themselves, I think a more complex battle system would serve the game better, and be able to act as an incentive for creating more variation than tons of vanilla infantry.

I would suggest a sort of battlemap looking like this:
| Attacker's Reserves | Frontline | 1st/2nd Rear Defense (if applicable) | Defender's Rear

Units are placed in each field, depending on doctrine, leader traits, leader skill, etc. Furthermore units in a field will be made into groups fighting each other NOT everyone versus everyone. Who is fighting who will depend on luck and on the leader's skill. For example, if the defender has a higher skill, then there is a good change that the attacking armour will face it off with the defenders ifnnatry brigaded with AT-guns, if the attacker has ahigher skill, then his armoru will instead attack unbrigaded inf or militia.
If a defending group gets overhwelmed by the attacking group, then the attacking units still capable of fighting will move towards the enemeis rear, how fast they reach it depending on their speed. Unless stopped,, they will inflict org loss to SEVERAL enemy units, without even engaging them, how many depending again mostly on their speed. Thus, if even one of ypour divisions penetrates the enemy rear, it will cause havoc for the rest of the defending units still hodling on. This simulates the penetrating units destroying enemy supply dumps, occupieing lines of communictaions and attacking the enemy from behind.
Of course the defender will dispatch divisions to inetrcept them, and even before to prevent a defending group from getting overwhelmed in the first place. However, how long it takes them to reach the enemy, eitehr still on the frontline or in the rear, will depend on their speed and the defending commanders skill. A unit reaching the enemies rear which is getting engaged by a defending unit intercepting it will stop causing org loss for other units, as it is busy fighting the defender. However, the defending unit will loose any and all entrenchment boni, they fight on even terms.
As for the second or even third line of defense, that will depend on doctrine. Especially the early Grand Battleplan path will only the frontlines and no secondary defense lines, on the Human Wave path, once youi research defense in depth, you will get two reserve lines. A few units will be placed there. While not engaging on the frontlines, peentrating units must overcome the secondray and then even tertiary defense line to get into the enemies rear. Also, overwhelmed untis from the front lines will retreat to the secondary lines, where they WILL get entrecnhment boni, occupieing lines specifically for falling back. They will also regenrate org while on the retreat, while the attacker will still loose a bit opf org while advancing to the second line.

Long post I know, but what do you people think of it???

[DanDaMan]

The question is, would this produce noticably different results at the level which the player sees than the current system? And would those results necessarily be more accurate? I think a lot of the combat problems has to do with the variable and low resolution of the province system.

[finbarr]

Yes, it could be very different indeed. I think there's potential here to really open up the combat system and introduce a greater degree of variability in the outcome while handing the player a more hands-on experience-and making the game play more realistically. Further, I think the added complexity could be surprisingly small.

Since each type of defence (limited by research and perhaps leadership or troop skill) could place a proportion of the forces available into one portion of the battle map outlined by Acheron (I'm not keen on doing this manually), there's a chance the attacker might get the style of attack badly wrong, or brilliantly right. It's a game of classic military paper, rock and scissors between attacker and defender, and that's all to the good. Right now it's something of a morbid and predictable grind from the beginning of a battle to the end.

Now where this gets interesting is in terms of realism, the ability of Germany to conduct skilled blitz and combined arms attacks was critical to early success. These sophisticated forms of attack should be reflected in not only unit characteristics, but in how the battle is actually fought over time and space. Of course, it would amplify German advantages early in the war as blitz attacks would quickly blast through plain infantry and get in the rear of enemy units to dish out org damage. Meantime, combined arms attacks would allow attacking units to target the most vulnerable units of the enemy rather than hitting whatever is there.

These advantages are considerable for the Germans, but they are historical. Perhaps more importantly, the system would place a premium on mobility and anti-tank guns. Stopping a mobile force from reaching a second or third line would be critically important, particularly if the forces manning the front were on foot, and couldn't help the second line in time. Essentially, the plain vanilla infantry army with no AT guns and no mobile reserves would be a thing of the past, except in urban or mountain terrain. And I would not shed a tear for its passing.

All in all I'm very excited by this idea. Human wave attacks could become the bloody but historical norm for the USSR, and Monty could be stuck with frontal assault after frontal assault, until the new techs come on line. The United States would have to brace through running their Shermans one-by-one into the waiting 88's at Kasserine using pure armoured spearhead attacks with virtually no sense of combined arms.

As for game balance, I've mentioned elsewhere that German operational superiority in the early years is understated, while allied production advantages are seriously underestimated. Fix both, and the feel of the game would shift drastically to a feverish need for early Axis success. Which, I believe, would be much closer to historical.

On the issue of complexity, it wouldn't be hard to pick a type of attack, and defending units could have a glow around them to indicate the style of defence, with defence-in-depth being the default.

[finbarr]

Acheron, and you thought your's was long. Apologies!

[Acheron]

Well finbarr, your post was more readable than mine. I really ought to use the enter button more often.

I am not entirely sure how the current battle system works, but since just pilling up huge amounts of vanilla inf is the ebst thing to do for ANYBODY, regardless of generals skills or doctrine, it doesn't seem overly good to me.

finbarr caught my diea pretty well. I want more diverse battles, where it makes sense to create different divisions for higher efficiency, not just for petter historcial feeling. Historically, battles were kinda diverse in WWII, so I looked at history and wondered how to get it's diversity into the game.

Also, I'd like to give brigades some purpose which are now virtually useless, mostly the AT and the TD brigades. As said, under a high skilled commander, you AT-brigaded inf will face off the enemy tanks, which ought to make them worthwhile finally. And your TD-brigaded mot/mech/arm (cav?) will be among the first to reach penetrating enemy tanks, and again the TDs will face enemy hard units, finally enabling them to do what they were built for.

Also I'd like to see the doctrines more different from one another. As I said, Grand Battleplan would give you zero to one reserve line, though your initial frontline would be a tough nut to crack (with Trench Warfare and Preplanned Defense, your divisons ought to entrench faster AND more heavily, giving you a higher entrenchment bonus than anyone else). Human Wave I envision as giving your generals a higher command limit, Spearhead as making your units in general and your tanks in particular more damaging when breaking through and more likely to do so int eh first place. Superior firepower, I dunno yet about what it should become.

Back to the battle system, my suggestion would also enable the player to see what is going on, why his forces succeded or were defeated. Incompetend commander fumbling around so that the enemy was able to achieve pentration? Insufficient numbers so that the troops where simply voerwhelmed? Lack of mobile troops to contain/exploit breakthroughs?

Preferably, the optimum mix of troops would be soemthing highly dependant on your doctrine, the enemeis doctrine (what is working against the Japanese may not work against the Germans), skill superiority, industrial capacity and the situation (flanking attacks, air support, and so on) instead of "one recipe good for everyone, anytime, andwhere".

P.S.: With "skill superiority" I mean of course having RELATIVELY high skilled commanders, compared to your enemy. Having skill 2 on average beats skill 1 on average, while skill 4 average looses against skill 5 average, just thought I'd clarify.

[Lennartos]

hmmm...
if i understand correctly you want to use and expand EU3s 4*10 grid battle system with mutiple lines and fronts, right?
And then use the doctrines to define different goals and methods of winning the battle...

if not, please elaborate the system a little more.

[Acheron]

I never played EU3 and don't know how its battle works. Let me emphasize that I do NOT mean for the player to have any control of the battle, I just suggested this somewhat elaborate scheme of mine so that battles will get more diverse.

I am suggetsing different "zones" going vertically, namelky: attacker's reserve (to hold back troops uncommitted to send in where a breakthrough is being achieved), frontline (where the main fighting will take place), reserve defense lines (for the defender to either fall back or to contain breakthroughs), defenders rear (where ANY attacking unit reaching this will cause havoc for SEVERAL defending units on the frontline or other defense lines).

Also I am suggesting dividing the combatants into "groups", you could say these go horizontally. I would say that Grand Battlepland and Human Wave with their focus on large units are better suited for fighting in fewer, larger groups, while Superior Firepower and Spearhead would prefer fighting in more but smaller groups. Again, effective and relative leader skills will determine which side will get its way more often.

The group system is also necessary to allow something like a breakthough to happen, in contrast to simply the entrie frontline advancing. To achieve a breakthrough, one of the attacker's groups has to overwhelm the whole defending group opposing it. May sound harsh, but once the first defendending divisions fall out from org loss, the remaidner suddenly have even more attackers nipping at them, leading to the defenders faster and faster disintegration.

Was that somewhat clear? I realize I am not really got at getting my point across, if you can tell me where you have problems udnerstanding me, I will try to lighten up the dark labyrinths of my mind there.

[Lennartos]

Here is a picture of an EU3 battle i found on the AAR forum:


Please look in the southleft corner. at the battle of Fife

There are 2 lines: front and reserve for each army.
The units in reserve are non combattants until the front breaks, then they run to the front, closing the lines while the old front flees.

X = Infantry division
/ = Cavalary Division
¤ = Artillery equipped Inf.

Infantry can only attack in front or diagonally
Cavalary can attack in front, diagonally and 1 field besides the diagonal, so they can attack the flank of the enemy.
Artillery can attack 2 fields besides the diagonal.

so if 8 INF divisions attack 3 divisions, only the first 5 will be at the front. 3 will be in reserve. as INF only can attack in front and 1 field to the side.
-XXX-
XXXXX Army 1
------
-XXX- Army 2
And if you attack 1 divison, a max of 3 INF can attack that division. so given an technological advantage 1 Division can win against numeral superiority as you never face more than 3 INF at any time. ( you also have some breathing room as fro front breaks and reserves move up)

Now if you had 2 Cavalary(HOI2: Armor?) more you can add these to the flanks, as they can reach 1 field more to the side, adding more pressure to the flanks, thus improving your active battling force.
--XXX--
/XXXXX/ Army 1
--------
--XXX-- Army 2
Any more than 2 CAV will not be active in combat as they cannot attack and therefore will wait in the reserves until the front breaks.

As Artillery can reach 1 field more, you can add 1 on each flank again, and thus have 5vs1 attacks on the flanks. ( 3 from infantry, 1 from Cav and 1 from artillery).

The morale bar is the org bar from HOI2. Each unit does have seperate Org, but the bar is the overall org / divisions.

The first time i saw this i immidiatly thought of HOI3

[germanwarmachin]

I never played EU3 and don't know how its battle works.

Maybe a little off topic, but the EU3 battle system is extremely simplistic compared with HOI2, trust me. Event if it has that cool battle window.

[Lennartos]

germanwarmachin, please do not misunderstand... we are not talking about removing the HOI2 combat depth and replacing theam with EU3s "roll the dice" battles. but combine HOI2 Battle depth with the positioning, flanks, breakthroughs and fronts.

[Kelendor]

Lennartos: Thanks for that explanation of the EU3 battle system, I had no idea there was a configuration on it! This will make my battles more interesting from now on.

But, I would think that EU3's battle system just wouldn't fit in to HOI2/3/? very much at all, because of the vastly different methods of fighting between the two time eras. In EU3, its realistic because armies basically used the 'lines of battle' doctrine (ok, western armies), with opposing lines squaring of at each other, shooting each other, and such, with the reserves in rear rows and formations. Although i should add that of course cavalry weren't in the lines of battle, but rather charged in, be it through the front line, or flanking the enemy force, or whatever other direction they could. But that's not important right now .

The important difference (as I'm sure you are aware, and I'm probably just boring everyone) is that by ww2, battle doctrine had become all about the maneuver and speed of armies, encircling and then destroying opposing forces (or if you were lucky and not fighting the Japanese, capturing). The point is that, not only can the EU3 system not portray modern conflict, but I don't think you can reasonably expect to portray any form of visual or technical combat accuracy into a grand stratergy game. It would be an incredible drain on cpu power, especially when russia joins the war, and it would take the experience away from everything else in the game.

So personally I don't think the system needs to be upgraded, and anyway, as far as realism goes, I think the game designers have one thing down, in that you the player are the ruling figure in the game, not the general, so with battles, it makes sense that you know about the orders of combat (units involved), the location, and general conditions influencing combat in that region, but it will be the general who has the detailed tactical picture, with reserves, unit locations, etc etc. Even Hitler, who we know was mostly a meddler of military missions (alliteration ), was given information on a large scale map, not a small scale one.

Just my two cents

[Lennartos]

i see where you are coming from...
But from an objective point of view, i think the system WILL be portet to HOI3...

i dont think we should port the EU3 system over directly...
instead of having 2*32 lines of combat and 2*32 lines of reserve...
think of an 32*32 field battlefield... where divisions can move and attack freely... you dont have any direct influence on the divisions, exept maybe some general bahavioral commands, like retreat.

this would give us much more strategic options, and even encirclements while batteling... the combat missions events would not be just modifiers, but be implemeted in the battle engine.



its just a little picture i mad, but how is that?

paradox has made games in the past using battles like this... one of theam was "rome" or something like that... ( could be that paradox only was the publisher... im not sure)

[Acheron]

I would prefer fioghting in smaller groups, like this:

Atacker Reserves: XXAA//////
Attacker: X//AXX XX/X XXX XXA
Frontline: -------------------------------
Defender: XXXX XXX/ XXXA X///
Defender's Rear

[Lennartos]

So we just take EU3s system then?

Reserves1
Front1
Front2
Reserves2

like that?
That conversion could be quite simple....
But how should one model breakthroughs and flanks properly then?

[Acheron]

Originally Posted by Lennartos

But how should one model breakthroughs and flanks properly then?

?
Look at my suggetsion, mainly that the armies get divided into several groups. If the attacker overwhelms even one group, he will be able to achieve a breakthrough. Of course, in a huge battle, a single division breaking through won't cause enough damage to significantly alter the outcome of the battle (unless it is a really close thing) and it will be contained rather quickly, but it will surely help the attacker.

[Balesir]

If I understand Acheron correctly what he is suggesting is essentially treating each province as if it were several (4x4 or 5x5?) provinces with stacks in each 'sub-province' and movement just as occurs on the larger, province scale. The same effect could be achieved by dividing all provinces into several, but the advantage with this method is that unless there is an actual battle the computer doesn't have to treat the provinces as divided.

I agree that some more 'sophistication' is required - though less so than in EU where the assumption that two armies in a several hundred square kilometer area will immediately join battle is somewhat strange - but I can't help thinking it would be better if more abstracted.

[Acheron]

Well, not necessarily divising provinces into subspaces. The idea is that these modern battles will be fought over a large front, not like in EU, where two armies meet on one confided battlefield to dish it out.
Instead, there will be several angles of attack. The attacker would be a fool to attack on really the entire front without concentrating his force anywhere.

On the other hand, the defender will try to outguess the attacker, shielding the more liekly routes of attack with more units... which of course means neglecting other sectors. While we are at it, sectory may be better than groups.

Once the battle is joined, the attacker will hurry his reserves to sectors where success seems most likely, the defender will hurry his forces to sectors which threaten to collapse the quickest.

Most true for the Spearhead Doctrine, reading about "Deep operations" on the Wikipedia, the Red army would fare better when being able to attack virtually all but the strongest sectors to voerhwelm the enemy. But then they'd wreak havoc, the beaten defendending divisions in bad need for rest and reinforcments... which of course would be a bit hard to arrange.