Help me refine my idea for tactics

[Corpse Fool]

Other users helped inspire me to develop an idea for what I think would be at the very least, a more interesting way to make use of the mechanics for tactics, commander initiative, and recon.

I'm looking for more help from a variety of users that might have more intimate knowledge on the topics to try to fit this more into the ww2 setting of the hoi4 game.

Currently, tactics look something like this terrible paint drawing I made in 2 minutes....

we can see that the majority of the tactics are contained within a single phase, and there is very little travel between phases. My suggestion takes the phases and expands on them, splitting them into tiers and trends with a lot more travel between phases. It will look something like this...

With the ability for doctrines/research to add tactics, we can have a lot of control for the different develops to insert tactics into various positions and either allow travel from certain parts to whatever other parts, super tactics that would make for big moves or allow access to phases that we wouldn't otherwise be able to enter that would have advantageous qualities, such as preventing reverse movement.

Does anyone have anything they would like to share with regards to this? I can see some problems with this being extremely difficult to present to players organically through the in-game UI, as well as the variety of tactics that would be required to navigate this mess and how cluttered that would make techs that grant tactics, possibly unlocking multiple in the same tech.

 

[walt526]

I'll preface by saying that I'm not sure I'm interpreting this figure correctly.

I'm pretty sure that this is saying Player 1 chooses A, B, or C at the open. But how it proceeds from there is a little unclear. Let's assume Player 1 chooses A. Is it then that Player 2 then decide whether to take the interaction to node B, D, E, X? If so, let's assume D. Then Player 1 decides whether to take the interaction to state A, E, or X? And so forth?

If that's the case, then a player should never choose D=>X because once on X there's only one possible resolution (E). In any sequential game, if the opponent can solve the mixed strategy equilibrium, then you're going to be at a serious disadvantage. That is, every node should have at least two possible choices (i.e., the choice set cannot be a singleton). Same thing with G=>Z (since F is then the resolution with certainty), A=>X (since E with certainty), etc.

FWIW, for purposes of illustration, I'd simplify the model by just assuming two strategies at every node: attack or defend. It's easier to visualize and you can then express a simple 2x2 payoff matrix at each node to inform the mixed strategy equilibria.

 

[Com]

While I do like the idea of different tactics/doctrines pulling combats into phases that favor them, I'm not sure that the current system is equipped to handle it. Incentivizing tactic picks is essentially impossible, though custom weighting can help this a lot it doesn't consider recon in a meaningful way. The existing counter system is also lackluster as it only somewhat increases the odds that an enemy tactic is countered, and I don't believe that scales as you increase the recon advantage.

Furthermore, I think the scale of this is a bit too much. Its going to be very difficult to balance all those different combinations if that's even possible.

More tactics, more phases, special phases, and various new special tactics would all do a lot of good. More options to create tactics would also be good. I'm still disappointed that tactics relying on unpierced armor or friendly air superiority aren't supported.

Lastly, tactics require all the divisions in combat to meet the requirements. A while back I made a small submod (which is slowly being updated) for Their Finest Bruh. It adds some tactics, one of which requires at least 70 hardness and 60 armor to be available. If any unit in combat doesn't meet that criteria, its removed from the list. That's pretty sad as the tactic is called armored spearhead, but it can only be implemented with strategic level micro.

 

[Corpse Fool]

I'll preface by saying that I'm not sure I'm interpreting this figure correctly.

I may have gotten a little too excited about the idea and forgot to really explain it. I suppose I should have mentioned that the web that I made isn't really meant to represent the complete, final idea. It is just a mock up to show the differences between current and projected. There may be more or less tiers, completely unbalanced amounts of bubbles on either side, more or less one directional or multi directional movement, alternate biases that would be aggressive/cautious favoring for attackers/defenders that would increase/decrease damage both sides might suffer, and might actually had personality traits of officers affect the weights of certain tactics either way.

In the current implementation, most often you're going to be in the default phase. CC has had its weight greatly reduced outside cities, TW is only available if the defender is SF doctrine, and SB/HB only happen if you're fighting across a river. And while we're within the default phase that has the greatest pool of tactics available to it, there isn't really a sense of progression, it is just a completely random roll each time that might as well be done in complete isolation.

My idea here is to draw out more of the potential of the tactics/recon/initiative system and how doctrines/research/etc interact with tactics to bring about a sense of progress and to make the tactics feel a lot less isolated and strictly RNG. I neglected to label the idea with how many tactics would be in each bubble like I did for the current implementation, but each phase might only have a small pool of available choices per side like the sub-phases in current have.

We would start in the opening phase, and the particular rolls made there would shift us into either A, B, or C which would be benefiting more towards one side or the other. If we did roll A first, we might move into B, D, E, or X based on what tactics we have available that might move us to those phases, or what tactics the enemy has that might counter and nullify that move. The A -> X move that skips a step would probably rely on a doctrine unlock that specializes in offense and some good luck to actually pick.

In the above example, the attacker wants to be in D or X, because it would be providing more of the benefit to the attacker. Both of those might naturally drift into E, as the defender wants to escape the situation, but having recon/initiative and depending on the choice of doctrines one side might be better or worse at getting into or out of those situations.

It might end up like chutes and ladders, where the chutes and ladders are changing positions all the time.

While I do like the idea of different tactics/doctrines pulling combats into phases that favor them, I'm not sure that the current system is equipped to handle it.

I came up with this idea based on my experiences modding the tactics system. I'm fairly confident I could get some sort of functioning network for the phase movement and such to take place. The real hard part of this is going to be assigning context and values.

Incentivizing tactic picks is essentially impossible, though custom weighting can help this a lot it doesn't consider recon in a meaningful way.

Part of why recon is lackluster is that it relies on the enemy picking the tactic that you have a counter for, while that counter still competes with every other tactic you could pick. If we make each pool of tactics in each phase smaller which is one of my intentions, the added weight from the recon/initiative system makes up a much greater difference. I also intend for the impact of successfully countering the enemy tactic to be the best result, rather than in the current implementation where countering is nice and all, but might not be exactly what you want to have happen.

The existing counter system is also lackluster as it only somewhat increases the odds that an enemy tactic is countered, and I don't believe that scales as you increase the recon advantage.

In the recon v recon comparison, it only counts the highest and gives the full recon bonus to whoever wins that comparison. You can scale how many fake skill points this gives the winner, and you can also scale how much each point of advantage is going to boost the weight of the counter tactic.

Furthermore, I think the scale of this is a bit too much. Its going to be very difficult to balance all those different combinations if that's even possible.

My current intent is to largely treat all of those phases to have similar results to what current tactics have. If we're in the 'encirclement phase' for lack of a better example, we should expect a total result of modifiers to be similar to what is currently in vanilla. Balance of course will be a challenge, but rather than having the enemy roll a tactic that offsets the bonuses of the tactics you roll, the goal of good tactic rolls isn't really to have good performance of the next little while (though it will still improve), it is to move phases to where you would find an improved average modifier outcome compared to the previous phase.

Lastly, tactics require all the divisions in combat to meet the requirements.

This is good to know, I had wondered how the hardness requirement on blitz and breakthrough worked, but I never bothered to test it myself as I hadn't delved that deeply into specific tactics, I was exploring tactics as a whole.

 

[Com]

My idea here is to draw out more of the potential of the tactics/recon/initiative system and how doctrines/research/etc interact with tactics to bring about a sense of progress and to make the tactics feel a lot less isolated and strictly RNG. I neglected to label the idea with how many tactics would be in each bubble like I did for the current implementation, but each phase might only have a small pool of available choices per side like the sub-phases in current have.


I came up with this idea based on my experiences modding the tactics system. I'm fairly confident I could get some sort of functioning network for the phase movement and such to take place. The real hard part of this is going to be assigning context and values.

Part of why recon is lackluster is that it relies on the enemy picking the tactic that you have a counter for, while that counter still competes with every other tactic you could pick.

In the recon v recon comparison, it only counts the highest and gives the full recon bonus to whoever wins that comparison. You can scale how many fake skill points this gives the winner, and you can also scale how much each point of advantage is going to boost the weight of the counter tactic.

My current intent is to largely treat all of those phases to have similar results to what current tactics have. If we're in the 'encirclement phase' for lack of a better example, we should expect a total result of modifiers to be similar to what is currently in vanilla. Balance of course will be a challenge, but rather than having the enemy roll a tactic that offsets the bonuses of the tactics you roll, the goal of good tactic rolls isn't really to have good performance of the next little while (though it will still improve), it is to move phases to where you would find an improved average modifier outcome compared to the previous phase.

This is good to know, I had wondered how the hardness requirement on blitz and breakthrough worked, but I never bothered to test it myself as I hadn't delved that deeply into specific tactics, I was exploring tactics as a whole.

You're saying it'd be more like this?

Initial phase -> Assault/Attack/Siege

Assault -> CQB/Flank
Attack ->Flank/Combat/Skirmish
Siege -> Bombard/Encircle

so on -> victory/route

Essentially, from a given phase you can force combat into the next phase, hopefully to your advantage. I wouldn't mind if there was a system to give an overall advantage to one side. Say an attacker (who has strat advantage) starts the assault phase [+1] from no combat, this then progresses to the flank phase [+1]. However, the defender has a high level field marshal and good recon, and during the flank phase executes an ambush[+1 defender -1 attacker] that fully counters a flank tactic, or the flank itself. The ambush halts the flank phase and ends it. The defender then rolls a counter attack, perhaps as a new phase, this pushes the attacker back into the initial phase if they do not counter it, or have a side grade available such as SF's tactical withdrawal.

I'm mostly aware of what recon does, I just wish it did more. Sophisticated recon should have more value than simple recon even if you have the recon advantage in both cases. I would like to make certain tactics difficult or even impossible to counter if the recon level isn't high enough.

As for how requirements for combat tactics must be met, I'd prefer there to be a case for a min % or count of divisions that meet the criteria to unlock the tactic. I'd like my armored spearhead tactic to be available so long as 1 division actively fighting meets the criteria, but I don't want my exquisite defense tactic to be unlocked unless everyone meets the criteria. I think it would provide a nice flexibility

Forgot to mention, a mechanic to drive the enemy back out of a tile would be nice, just some inverse of the way armies move into a tile during attacks.