A more 'Dynamic' Combat System

[unmerged(89506)]

Hey all,

Can't wait for the release for the latest HoI game. With all the map changes and 'everlasting' tech tree, it should be quite exciting. However, I do have a slight...question regarding the current land combat system. In the HoI II system, it makes the battles seem more of a mathematical simluation than a war simulation. For example, whoever has the highest numbers basically wins the battle '-5 decryption, +4 experience, etc, etc"

The overall battles were exciting, but in the actual battles you just looked at who had the higher numbers.

~Mal.

 

[unmerged(89506)]

...Anyone?

 

[unmerged(99323)]

so what's the question?

 

[Lazy_Boy]

Well the whole combat system is based on unit stats + terrain/weather modifiers and some random combat events. It's definitely not totally dependent on division numbers (although it is more than it should be).

What exactly are you suggesting they add in? All I can say is to make the existing variables make a much bigger difference like the TRP mod.

 

[unmerged(89506)]

Exactly, that's my question; how can the system be improved?

Instead of it being too mathematical, it should be more 'tactical'. I have no idea how this can be implemented, but atm, the system is too number-based.

TRP? Do you mind explaining the difference between that and vanilla in terms of the combat system?

~Mal.

 

[The_Carbonater]

HoI is about strategy, not tactics

 

[Kanitatlan]

I would suggest you go and read my old A Critique of combat thread for major ideas on improving combat

 

[Tornadoli]

Yeah, I also don't particularly like the current combat system.
In real life, sometimes far outnumbered troops won just through sheer determination, luck etc. That is not possible in HoI2.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

Instead of it being too mathematical, it should be more 'tactical'. I have no idea how this can be implemented, but atm, the system is too number-based.

For me, one of the elements i'm hoping that will make it more dynamic would be the new, improved map.

Operational fluidity will likely be increased - as the number of provinces goes up, the number of divisions per province will go down. Thus leading to increased risk of breakthrough along any point of the line and the necessity of reserves. Currently if you have 12 divisions in a province, all can leap to action in simultaneous defence or attack. Diluting the force density via more numerous provinces increases the likelihood that offensives will be characterized by deliberate local superiority and will have to contend with more concerted flanking attacks and counter-encirclements.

While not necessarily a panacea, i'm hoping that the quantitative increase in provinces will result in a qualitative shift in combat.

 

[Kanitatlan]

It is worth considering just what all the "it is too mathematical" posters really mean. I think what they mean is that the random effects in combat don't ever seem to make much difference. There is a simple reason for this which is that there are too many of them. If you roll 1,000 dice the chance of getting a value that is +50% on the average is miniscule. If you roll one it is unusual but not much. The core problem is that combat is determined by aggregating many, many small random fluctuations so that even small battles with few units are always "average" results. There are additional confounding factors like escalating returns from greater force rather than diminishing returns but that is secondary.

Therefore ( and I would like to know if you all agree ) what combat needs is for there to be a few random influences that have a large impact on the battle representing the operational manoeuvre of the two forces giving luck greater prominence. My personal view is that this should be achieved by a major expansion of the combat events system to become a major role in battle results rather than minor decoration.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Therefore ( and I would like to know if you all agree ) what combat needs is for there to be a few random influences that have a large impact on the battle representing the operational manoeuvre of the two forces giving luck greater prominence. My personal view is that this should be achieved by a major expansion of the combat events system to become a major role in battle results rather than minor decoration.

We already have that: BUT
really if paradox made the "random combat events" moddable and more important that would be 1 step in a good direction. In MEM mod we have them happen very often so they influence battles, but still their effects should be clearer and modable to the intensity we like.

 

[Tornadoli]

It is worth considering just what all the "it is too mathematical" posters really mean. I think what they mean is that the random effects in combat don't ever seem to make much difference. There is a simple reason for this which is that there are too many of them. If you roll 1,000 dice the chance of getting a value that is +50% on the average is miniscule. If you roll one it is unusual but not much. The core problem is that combat is determined by aggregating many, many small random fluctuations so that even small battles with few units are always "average" results. There are additional confounding factors like escalating returns from greater force rather than diminishing returns but that is secondary.

Therefore ( and I would like to know if you all agree ) what combat needs is for there to be a few random influences that have a large impact on the battle representing the operational manoeuvre of the two forces giving luck greater prominence. My personal view is that this should be achieved by a major expansion of the combat events system to become a major role in battle results rather than minor decoration.

+1
Great Idea

 

[Sangeli]

One thing I don't like is the lack of "attrition" for units on the front line. When units are on the front line, even if you dont initiate attacks, they should suffer causualties and organisation loss or regaining organization more slowly. Also, the amount of units on a province should affect the supply effeciency of each unit. Units should move more slowly if they are next to the enemy because they have to mantain battle formation. Units moving perpendicular to fighting should automatically suffer a 25% flanking penalty for a few turns. I really don't like how reserves are meaningless in this game and you can simply reinforce from adjacent provinces.

Units acheiving a breathough should move faster into enemy provinces than normally. Land battles hould alos be conducted more like naval battles with the idea of distance determining causualty levels and organiztion loss. With the ability to choose the battalion composition of a divsion (which i think is happening) artillery should get a HUGE boost in importance (don't confuse that with improvement in strength). Also, I don't like how units in retreat don't suffer causualties. If a unit is to slow in retreat then faster attacking units should do damage to it but I'm not sure exactly how it should be determined.

HOI looks at war as a science, not an art. War is not just about quanitative values. Morale, experience, organization should influence battles more than they do now. The research tree of land doctrine is too much set in stone. It should be more fluid and flexible and play more of role in determining battles. Why does Kampgruppen or any land doctrine have a specific research year? Land doctrine isn't some technological breakthrough, its a conscious desicion made by the higher ups of how to conduct the art of war. Doctrine should influence the use the three arms of the land combat: tanks, infantry, and artillery (in terms of battalions). In fact, it would make more sense to have a competely new page called "land doctrine" which has a bunch of different sliders (like 40). For example, there should be slider for movement vs. firepower, having consequences in the effectivensess of artillery, the amount of casualties suffered, combat speed etc. However, in order to preserve the "art of war" the effects of each slider should not be given. Also, the one year wait for diplomatic sliders doesnt' exist. Other sliders would be more specific like "armoured unit doctrine" with tanks on one end and infantry on the other, which affects attack, defense, combined arms bonus, and etc. The whole point is to give the player the ability to design military doctrine to his liking. ONe thing that has to be avoided is making the affects too narrow so that one way of organizing sliders is superior to another; the effectiveness should be more relative to the players tendencies and the strageic postion of the nation.

 

[TheCrimsonMajor]

I thin combat should result in more manpower losses, not just organization, but other than that, its fine.

 

[Naga Niome]

Therefore ( and I would like to know if you all agree ) what combat needs is for there to be a few random influences that have a large impact on the battle representing the operational maneuver of the two forces giving luck greater prominence. My personal view is that this should be achieved by a major expansion of the combat events system to become a major role in battle results rather than minor decoration.

It bothers me how someone suggested the very same thing except in less literary skills and many people pounced upon the suggestion negatively.

What was it is you could select in battles is Tactical Withdrawal, Encirclement, Assault like the events already were and the opposition had to choose their doctrine and both Attacker and Defender would be gaining advantages and making themselves vulnerable depending upon which one they chose.

However, as a previous poster commented, this is a grand strategy game, and it would require an incredible amount of micromanagement to the point, these random factors aren't so much random as what you research in Land Doctrines increases the chance for Encirclement, Assault, Delay to occur.

You're going to far Kanitalian without a rearguard thought that I agree we should be able to control these "random factors" and make the game "less mathematical", but with 3x as many more provinces, it is going to be far harder with so many more engagements occuring, and that thus they will actually make this mathematical, randomly occuring battle events useful. Which, evidently leads to the Land Doctrines becoming more powerful tools as well as these research components because if the chance of getting say a Blitzkrieg event is 40%, there is a 2/3rd chance of it happening in every province battle. You can't every hour Assault, Assault, Assault which is a more deliberately, vulnerable and forced frontal attack on another note, as an battle event for realistic reasons.

So frankly, we cannot have a tactical simulator, or even less a human option to constantly choose which sort of tactical position you wish to take in a grand strategy game that takes into good mathematical account terrain, infrastructure, weather, supplies, oil, partisans, dissent, interdiction, cetera. This isn't CloseCombat, this is a global warfare simulation where being as abstract as possible gives you a clearer control of military operations to boot.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

The overall battles were exciting, but in the actual battles you just looked at who had the higher numbers.

i'm hoping that assembling the higher numbers will be half the battle. And that dealing with pockets and counter-attacks after one side punches through will constitute a great element than currently.

It is worth considering just what all the "it is too mathematical" posters really mean. I think what they mean is that the random effects in combat don't ever seem to make much difference. There is a simple reason for this which is that there are too many of them. If you roll 1,000 dice the chance of getting a value that is +50% on the average is miniscule. If you roll one it is unusual but not much. The core problem is that combat is determined by aggregating many, many small random fluctuations so that even small battles with few units are always "average" results. There are additional confounding factors like escalating returns from greater force rather than diminishing returns but that is secondary.

Therefore ( and I would like to know if you all agree ) what combat needs is for there to be a few random influences that have a large impact on the battle representing the operational manoeuvre of the two forces giving luck greater prominence. My personal view is that this should be achieved by a major expansion of the combat events system to become a major role in battle results rather than minor decoration.

i'd qualify that by the suggestion that the map (hopefully) opens up more 'space' for operational manouevre. Thus introducing dynamism as concentration of force in the direction of attack would have to be balanced against the continuity of the line in order to hinder the opposition's freedom of movement. With reserves gaining importance both for sustaining an offensive and countering the enemy in motion. i.e. larger effects for random events might supplement combat.. but i wouldn't support them as a substitute for operational maneouvre or its effects. Plus, as one got into the 'side-battles' which constituted part of a particular offensive, one would potentially see the effect of existing variables (force-ratios, terrain, leaders, weather, etc) increased. At least locally. Which in turn could be the hinge determining whether an armoured spearhead becomes encircled and so forth.

i'm quite interested in seeing how the increased uh... 'granularity' (this is the word, yes?) would impact on outcomes. As i tend to think force-allocation, force-ratios, supply-lines would become more important. To the extent that i'm hoping one needn't resort to increased randomization as a substitute.

That said, particularly tenacious defence or well-conducted fighting by a formation would be interesting. Just not sure how much larger a role it should play. So i guess you could chalk me up as a waffly supporter of increased randomization. Insofar as i'd be glad to see the 'science' remain, while adding more room for 'art', and maybe some 'luck' too.


Edit: Mathematical summary: ±0.33, 19 times out of 20.

 

[JoeGiavani]

I'm not sure what the OP's point is.
Random variables aren't powerful enough? Frankly I prefer a less "random" game as this makes it more strategic.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

One thing I don't like is the lack of "attrition" for units on the front line.

erm units do suffer from attrition in enemy zones. That its too small in vanilla thats another matter.

 

[Punderland]

Maybe we can displace the division in different formation in battle to take our part in the combat. This is what I always expecting.

 

[Lazy_Boy]

I think a good first step would be having multiple attack and defense missions. With many becoming available through doctrine.

Attackers with Blitzkrieg doctrines could have Panzer divisions on a breakthrough objective. Once the assault progresses to a point they break the line and continue moving to the next province. Now that the provinces are smaller localized encirclements like that would make sense. That's the kind of encircling that took place IRL. Not massive 500 mile sparsely defended "control" lines that magically cut off the units. Plus failing to breakthrough then could cause massive casualties and ruin the unit. Adding risk and making careful planning important.

Defensive doctrine could be set up to slowly counter those tactics. Making your units harder to break. It would then make sense to position large groups behind lines to counter breakthroughs. Something the AI could automatically learn to as the game progresses. Like Fall Weiss and Barbarossa resulting in the quick encirclement and destruction of large armies that were too close to the front lines.

Could be all kinds of things like feint attack, fighting retreat. Don't want go too far but the system as is doesn't really have much depth.

I think adding stuff like that could allow for so much more realism in IC and such too. If the Germans had the real life tactical advantages early on there's no reason to skew the IC for game balance. Along with a better system for grouping and giving standing orders to units I think tactical choices other that "attack" would be a great addition. Would also make planning and anticipating your enemy a MUCH bigger portion if you couldn't just "attack" on a whim with mega unit stacks wherever it looks weak.