Epic Battles

[MadlockUK]

In World War II there were many drawn out battles in one place in which a breakthrough would not happen for weeks, months and in some instances such as Leningrad, Sevastapol, and Dunkirk in which the fight would last to just near the end of the war. Thus I think we need an Epic or Grand Battle ability. With an entire front stuck in one place there should be the ability to have several provinces dedecated to fighting others. Therefore you can have Stalingrad with the Germans constantly assualting and the Russians Counter-assaulting but the difference is, you can engage the enemy with a full assualt and choose which divisions will go into combat and those into reserve with divisions withdrawing at a set rate. Thus a grand battle can rage on for ages. Also, I'd like to end this with a Battle Log so writing after-action reports will also be easier.

What do you lot think?

 

[Lazy_Boy]

It seems to me like the frontage limiting the number of engaged forces with reserves will solve this problem. Already seen screens that show great promise for more battle realism and length.

Still need to take a few hints from the TRP/WiF mods on making combat last longer though. If you blitz well you can punch through quickly. If you don't the enemy has time to reinforce and it becomes a long battle of attrition. Combat in HOI2 vanilla never lasted more than a few hours and gave no chance to make a counter move. Also attacker had a huge unrealistic advantage even with just infantry mega stacks.

 

[unmerged(17767)]

Agreed. I'm a big fan of the WiF's combat model. I'd like to see something along those lines in HOI3 as well.

 

[henryjai]

frontage and reserves would make battles longer, but still i hope they last a little bit longer.

 

[von_Ysselstein]

Like the idea alot. Absolutely correct, would be great to have a sort of siege phase over key terrain/important industrial centers etc if the engaged forces are beeing deadlocked. Or at least available mission types other than full assault, like f.e. laying down artillery bombardment to soften up defensive installations (prior to full assault), stosstrupps (raiding patrols), aggressive recconnaissance, sniper employment (there would be attrition and experience gain then even when the frontlines do not change) .. Aynthing to have some activity at the frontlines while there are no large scale offensives etc.

 

[daemonofdecay]

Like the idea alot. Absolutely correct, would be great to have a sort of siege phase over key terrain/important industrial centers etc if the engaged forces are beeing deadlocked. Or at least available mission types other than full assault, like f.e. laying down artillery bombardment to soften up defensive installations (prior to full assault), stosstrupps (raiding patrols), aggressive recconnaissance, sniper employment (there would be attrition and experience gain then even when the frontlines do not change) .. Aynthing to have some activity at the frontlines while there are no large scale offensives etc.

Alot of what you described is much more tactical and not really an "option" at HoI's level of simulation. If you are controlling divisions you really shouldn't be ordering around snipers or telling the generals on the ground just how to utilize their artillery on the advance.

 

[unmerged(131342)]

Indeed. I have often been a fan of front-line attrition simulating artillery exchanges, patrols, etc. These are all tactical though, so please, no missions sor this.

As for the epic battles; nice idea. I've always thought that HoI2 battles were too linear. In reality, force projection is what makes or breaks a battle. In case of near-equal force projection, nothing moves and bloody battles occur. If one side has much more force projection there is little to no battle. Note here that force projection is not nessecarily more men or machines, but also organization. I think some function between each side's total org, SA and HA should result in a "progress" modifier, which decides whether a battle actually goes anywhere or not. This modifier can also be used to modify the movement speed of the attacking force, finally simulating your army actually having to fight for gains.

 

[von_Ysselstein]

Alot of what you described is much more tactical and not really an "option" at HoI's level of simulation. If you are controlling divisions you really shouldn't be ordering around snipers or telling the generals on the ground just how to utilize their artillery on the advance.

I principally agree on your point, but I still think it better if there was the simulation of 'minor' frontline activity in case the frontlines are not moving for months

 

[unmerged(134054)]

I think some function between each side's total org, SA and HA should result in a "progress" modifier, which decides whether a battle actually goes anywhere or not. This modifier can also be used to modify the movement speed of the attacking force, finally simulating your army actually having to fight for gains.

That's, acually, very sound. For example attacket managed to almost break through the defender's line, but had to stop the attack because of lack of manpower for an effective breakthough. Thus both provinces are back to where they started, with bleeding divisions on both sides.

 

[MadlockUK]

Indeed. I have often been a fan of front-line attrition simulating artillery exchanges, patrols, etc. These are all tactical though, so please, no missions sor this.

As for the epic battles; nice idea. I've always thought that HoI2 battles were too linear. In reality, force projection is what makes or breaks a battle. In case of near-equal force projection, nothing moves and bloody battles occur. If one side has much more force projection there is little to no battle. Note here that force projection is not nessecarily more men or machines, but also organization. I think some function between each side's total org, SA and HA should result in a "progress" modifier, which decides whether a battle actually goes anywhere or not. This modifier can also be used to modify the movement speed of the attacking force, finally simulating your army actually having to fight for gains.

Yeah, I'd like that and maybe a form of play that would force people to continue fight with progress reports such as a breakthrough pushing further into the city. With certain Urban areas adding to morale, such as Leningrad and Stalingrad, allowing the battles to last. Also, I'd love it if they documented in the game big battles and when VP cities fell to enemy hands. It would be great for AAR. I'd like to have my forces, let's say Soviet, tying up the German and Finnish Advance into the Northern Soviet Republics. Also, I think that maybe a cool option but what about a Volkstrum scenario or something?

Lots of countries forced to almost, or actual, defeat often had militias, wether if by choice of the government or not to spring up and resist the invasion espicially in places like Stalingrad were working anywhere not directly related to the war was basically meaningless thus allowing a lot of the population to be turned into hardy militia. Though I think for fairness the milita should disappear after the enemy has clearly been defeated after the
'epic battle' was over.

Also, I think if an epic battle was to be lost or won should affect dissent. so it could be 2% per VP of the city maybe?

 

[Alex_brunius]

Agreed. I'm a big fan of the WiF's combat model. I'd like to see something along those lines in HOI3 as well.

Just by the pure fact that we got 5times as much provinces means distance needed to travel to reinforce a province under attack will likely be cut in less than half.

Then add frontages, reserves as well as battles slowing attacking forces movement down and we are getting a very dynamic battle system much more similair to WiF.

With battle events said to make more of an impact it will also be much more tempting to attack with the same force ratio even after suffering multiple close defeats.

But Its of no use to make statements or wishes on changes before you have tried all these new goodies out in action. This is something we have to trust Paradox is testing and tweeking themselfs.

 

[Ostheim]

I think it is a pretty cool idea to have some minor dissent penalty on the loser of a major or 'epic' battle. Perhaps the equation to determine how severe could be based on how much strength damage the loser suffered from start to finish? National Unity and possibly government type could also affect the penalty. Stalingrad comes to mind as a historical example.

This could be a deterrent against recklessness. Players would need to think hard sometimes about when to admit defeat or hold out and hope for a combat event or reserves or new supporting units to save them from disaster. It would also give initiative to the victor, such as with the Soviets in Operation Uranus and immediately after. The penalty would be minor to non existent except for really brutal and/or long battles. I think it's a step in the right direction and an advance in realism to have some political connection with the course of the war. The people at home don't like to see the war going badly.

 

[MadlockUK]

Just by the pure fact that we got 5times as much provinces means distance needed to travel to reinforce a province under attack will likely be cut in less than half.

Then add frontages, reserves as well as battles slowing attacking forces movement down and we are getting a very dynamic battle system much more similair to WiF.

With battle events said to make more of an impact it will also be much more tempting to attack with the same force ratio even after suffering multiple close defeats.

But Its of no use to make statements or wishes on changes before you have tried all these new goodies out in action. This is something we have to trust Paradox is testing and tweeking themselfs.

Doesn't hurt to provide ideas though? I'd be surprised if they even all of these except those that maybe pertaining to what they're working on current. (i.e. DDs)

I think it is a pretty cool idea to have some minor dissent penalty on the loser of a major or 'epic' battle. Perhaps the equation to determine how severe could be based on how much strength damage the loser suffered from start to finish? National Unity and possibly government type could also affect the penalty. Stalingrad comes to mind as a historical example.

This could be a deterrent against recklessness. Players would need to think hard sometimes about when to admit defeat or hold out and hope for a combat event or reserves or new supporting units to save them from disaster. It would also give initiative to the victor, such as with the Soviets in Operation Uranus and immediately after. The penalty would be minor to non existent except for really brutal and/or long battles. I think it's a step in the right direction and an advance in realism to have some political connection with the course of the war. The people at home don't like to see the war going badly.

Yeah, it would make people's decisions more precise but also when taking on a huge target can help make or break the war. I think it would make people consider the options before just the 'click-to-advance' approach.

 

[daemonofdecay]

Yeah, it would make people's decisions more precise but also when taking on a huge target can help make or break the war. I think it would make people consider the options before just the 'click-to-advance' approach.

I have been a longtime supporter of their being a negative penalty for very large or repeated losses on the battlefields, but the only problem is that Dissent (as portrayed in HOI2) doesn't really represent the loss of optimism and growing cynycism and dissillusionment with the reigning government. In Authoritarian governments you would be worried about a coup or assassination attempt while democracies would have an eye on the next election. But making it so tanks build slower because of the loss at Stalingrad just doesn't fit.

But then again, Dissent is not very realistic in its effects either. I think Paradox made dissent do what it did just to make it worth avoiding, in which case its all about gameplay over historical accuracy.

 

[unmerged(135331)]

What does WiF stand for? Can I have a link to it?

 

[unmerged(112834)]

i believe the dev diaries already covered this, somewhat indrectly mind you, and i don't recall off hand in which DD, but.

units no longer need to retreat completely out of a province in order to rejoin combat, only as far as the attacker has entered, so, if they are 35% in, your retreating unit need only move 35% out and battle is rejoined, also, units do not stay and fight until all divisions in the stack are defeated, they retreat one by one, without affecting other units int he battle as they are defeated, and rejoin as they complete their partial retreats. with frontage limiting combat forces, and logistics limiting the number of divisions in a province, you're eithre blitzing, or grinding.

so, i think your gonna get your wish from time to time now, fail to eliminate enough of russias army and it might start to get ugly.

 

[Battlecry]

What does WiF stand for? Can I have a link to it?

World in Flames, a mod for HOI2/DD/Arma.

here >> http://www.stonyroad.de/forum/showthread.php?t=8029

 

[Bart133]

Also, I think if an epic battle was to be lost or won should affect dissent. so it could be 2% per VP of the city maybe?

Having major battles (or just any battles) affect dissent makes sense, but at 2% per VP in HOI2 at least would mean that, for the Soviets, losing a battle for Moscow would immediately bump them up to 100% dissent, which is pretty excessive - I'd say that VPs would be better off having little dissent effect, with more dissent caused by casualties.

 

[unmerged(112834)]

Having major battles (or just any battles) affect dissent makes sense, but at 2% per VP in HOI2 at least would mean that, for the Soviets, losing a battle for Moscow would immediately bump them up to 100% dissent, which is pretty excessive - I'd say that VPs would be better off having little dissent effect, with more dissent caused by casualties.

if even considered, if should be proportional tot he countries entire VP value. Such that loss of 10 out of 100 VP's shouldn't ever cost you more than 10%, this also causes the high probability of opportunistic forces, and rebels, and civil war once you lose more than half your VP's if its directly relative to your total, if not directly related then you could suffer greater losses before this happened, but before the actual end this would occur just as a result of large decent values.

 

[unmerged(12217)]

The way to replicate such long, drawn-out battles would be to allow the current battle system to drag on and on, without conclusion, while the units are tied up and gradually whittled down. The tricky part would be this: how would you allow for reinforcements to come in that were not part of the original battle scenario? In the case of Stalingrad, for instance, I could see the game permitting a long term battle to rage on over the city region itself, with two primary opposing armies struggling for supremacy over each other for a period of weeks or even a month or two - but then how does the game permit the battle to be interrupted by the equivalent of the sudden Soviet massive pincer movement that cut off the German army?
I guess the answer is, you leave the battle rage on, and the pincer movement has to be over the surrounding regions, effectively cutting off the supply to the German army still fighting at the Stalingrad region.
So perhaps it is feasible, even without adding further reinforcements to the affected region - the key is to adjust the battle algorithm to allow for longer, more stalemated battles which give an opportunity for either side to try to encircle the other outside of the region that the battle is located in.