HoI3: Active, Provinceless Combat

[hellfish6]

DanDaMan has given me a lot of food for thought about provinceless combat in another thread, and I thought it was worthy of its own thread. I've added some of my own thoughts to it as well.

The Idea

Remove the province system from HoI3's combat system. Provinces may be retained for some administrative functions, but I prefer - and illustrate here - a totally provinceless system.

Why?

This system makes combat more realistic, as you're not fighting over artificial provinces. Instead you fight over key terrain (point objects) on the map - cities, towns, airfields, ports, bridges, etc.

It also allows for more interesting combat, as you get to move your forces without the constraints of abstract and artificial provinces - some of which in HoI2 could be huge and some of which could be tiny.

How it works

1. Radius of action.

In an active, provinceless combat system ground and naval units are represented by point objects on the map - just like towns and cities. The point determines the map location of that unit and is itself determined by the unit's center of mass. The Radius of Action (RoA) is the range of the unit's influence - the limit of the RoA is determined by a percentage of the unit's combat power. If a division has a 20km RoA (20km from the unit's center of mass), that means that 10% of its combat power is effective. Any enemy unit with its center of mass at the 20km mark will be attacked with 10% of the combat power of the division. Likewise, the enemy will attack as well if your division is within their radius of action. As the distance between the two units closes, the combat power of each division increases. At 10km, your division has 50% of its combat power available to it. When the two units are practically on top of each other, each fights with nearly 100% of its combat power.

Aircraft units likewise have a RoA, but theirs is determined by range from their airbase. If a tactical bomber unit has a 500km RoA, they can attack any target within 500km of their airbase.

Naval units are largely treated as other ground units, except their RoAs will tend to be greater and they are restricted to operating at sea.

2. Supply.

Supply is traced via roads and railroads from major friendly cities. If there is no open road/rail link from your division to a friendly city, that division is out of supply.

3. Attacking, defending, and reserve.

When you're attacking, you select a division (or corps or army) and basically click on the map to give it a destination waypoint. Likewise, if you shift+click on the map you can give the unit multiple waypoints. The speed of the advance will be determined by what terrain the unit's center of gravity is located on. If the unit's CoG is on a mountain, it will be slow. If it is on a road, it will be fast.

When defending, instead of selecting waypoints, you create a defensive line. click and drag to create a defensive line. This line will give the defending unit an RoA bonus, so that they can use their entire RoA without range restrictions.

Reserve posture for a division quadruples the RoA of the division, and likewise decreases the overall effectiveness of the unit. It's useful for garrisons and units not in combat.

Illustrations:



Jamaica (picked because it was a good quality map roughly of the style I like).

You can see the road system (red lines) and the important point objects (towns, city, airfield and port).



Here is the radius of action for a tactical bomber unit based at the Jamaican air base. Also in the pic is the info tab of the airbase, which details the size of the base, the value of the air defenses and radar systems of that base as well as what units are based there. If this was a city info tab, it might show IC capacity of the point object, manpower, resources, etc.



Combat.

Enemy division is red and its RoA is shown with the thin red circle around it. The defensive line is the thick red line on the southeast side of it.

The friendly division is blue, with its RoA shown buy a thin blue circle around it. It has attack waypoints that skirt around the red defensive line. Since the friendly division's center of gravity will not touch the defensive line, the defending enemy unit will not receive a defensive bonus.

Also shown is the unit info screen of the friendly division. This is derived from my Build-Your-Own-Division system, and shows the overall capabilities of the division. It also lets you see what kinds of components your division has (tooltips can tell you if your tank battalion is M4A1s or M5s) as well as buttons to disband or upgrade the division (allowing you to swap out battalions if you want).

Also note the leader screen. In this system, the leader is attached to the division like a brigade of its own. If you combine three divisions into a single corps, each division will retain its general and the corps will have its own general on top of that. Also the general will have personality traits (like Vicky) as well as combat traits (like HoI2).

 

[Balesir]

Combat.

Enemy division is red and its RoA is shown with the thin red circle around it. The defensive line is the thick red line on the southeast side of it.

The friendly division is blue, with its RoA shown buy a thin blue circle around it. It has attack waypoints that skirt around the red defensive line. Since the friendly division's center of gravity will not touch the defensive line, the defending enemy unit will not receive a defensive bonus.

OK, but (a) what about the 'normal' method of outflanking that involves engaging the enemy to his front with one brigade while outflanking with another brigade? The plan you give seems likely in reality to get the blue division (assuming there are no other blue divisions present) pinned against the coast and crushed if red commander realises what is going on... And (b) you could achieve much the same thing by having defences (whether 'fortifications' or 'digging in') specific to particular borders in a province system, surely?

I think you are trying to give the player tactical control in a game that is really about strategy and, by trying to be all things to all men, the likely result is a mixed up mess. Sorry, but I think tactical niceties are best left effectively as random factors in a game of strategic scope.

Also shown is the unit info screen of the friendly division. This is derived from my Build-Your-Own-Division system, and shows the overall capabilities of the division. It also lets you see what kinds of components your division has (tooltips can tell you if your tank battalion is M4A1s or M5s) as well as buttons to disband or upgrade the division (allowing you to swap out battalions if you want).

Also note the leader screen. In this system, the leader is attached to the division like a brigade of its own. If you combine three divisions into a single corps, each division will retain its general and the corps will have its own general on top of that. Also the general will have personality traits (like Vicky) as well as combat traits (like HoI2).

This I really quite like, but I already said so elsewhere, I thnnk/hope!

 

[henryjai]

this is an ideal system for combat if it could be made.

A more complex system means the difference between "who got more troops who win" and those who really good at strategic planning, but not sure if the AI could be that smart, it's always the damn AI too stupid to match a human.


i agree to remove province completely and make the game lots more complex with this, remember that one of the best of HOI series is that you are playing strategy game, not building troops and deploy them game. let Province left there just for administration. if more than a country control that province perhaps just make them can administrate like that in Vicky that a state governed by 2 countries.

something like placing supply dumps and artillery position would be cool.

 

[Miihkali]

That's not bad idea but how map modding should made then?

 

[henryjai]

i am opposing the idea of managing the attack yourself instead the player should just give generic ideas instead of very detailed ones.

but the combat mechanics would be far more realistic than the one now, the tactics should be decided by the computer and the "leaders" and doctrines while players giving detailed strategic commands, say, "attack that province", "stop advancing there", "cross river there at all cost", "armoured encirclement","seize supply depot", "attrition warfare".... that sort.
could possibly be some boxes for players to check when they give such orders to their corps/divisions.

this could simulate the troop movements even better, in current HOI2 you cannot rest your troops in middle of your trip and you have to abandon all your progress when you cancel your orders...

this also models counterattack, pursuit sort of thing more correctly, not to mention the encirclement thing would be much more realistic.

this would require more micromanagements but not all as long as it don't go into tactical level.


the bad is the AI would never be that smart to match a human, and it would be a very demanding game...

 

[Radu]

I myself would like to highlight this point as well. This idea risks to fall into the a bottomless abyss if it tries to be well... *everything*. So far in no single field of human activity has there been developed a theory of everything.

HOI is a grand strategic game.

What we're looking at if we start talking about out-flanking, is an Operational level game,which is an entirely different genre.Norm Koger's "The Operational Art of WarIII" is the game for you if you want this kind of action, but having to watch out for out-flanking manouvers on every 100km sector or so... it would also place upon the player burdens that would hardly be called 'fun'.

While I agree that a transition has to be made away from the "Province" system we must also keep in mind this : the player, in HOI at least, doesn't fight the battles, his generals and divisions do.The player, in the HOI grand strategic game,only makes the decisions about who fights where and when and also decides the nation's production and research priorities.

For example,if any one of you played in Multiplayer, you would realize that air and naval combat actually require an inordinate amount of baby-sitting, when these areas should be abstractized as well.

Paradox already fell into the "lower scale" pitfall in the Naval Combat Engine. Proof of that is the fact that subs cannot sneak near an Aircraft Carrier since the naval combat is more of a WWI or pre-WWI style where two fleets (stacks) face each other at the farthest possible distance and just fire away.

The whole "firing distance" thing is was a tempting,poisonous, flavour thing that ended up screwing things up around edges. That is because an extremely low level issue (firing distance) was given a grand-strategic importance...when it's really not the case.It is important,but not central.

The inclusion of "firing distance" as a centeripiece element in naval combat is about as big a mistake as including Aircraft cannon ranges and make it the determining factor in air combat. Or make the tank gun ranges the determining factor in land combat.

And the consequences for "firing distance" being the core of naval combat when it shouldn't? A fleet with ONE BB will never harm an SS fleet. An SS fleet will never harm even a single escort of a CV fleet...I could go on.

And while the idea behind this thread is good, you are in danger of falling in the same pit: giving tactical/operational level elements grand strategic importance.

 

[henryjai]

I myself would like to highlight this point as well. This idea risks to fall into the a bottomless abyss if it tries to be well... *everything*. So far in no single field of human activity has there been developed a theory of everything.

HOI is a grand strategic game.

What we're looking at if we start talking about out-flanking, is an Operational level game,which is an entirely different genre.Norm Koger's "The Operational Art of WarIII" is the game for you if you want this kind of action, but having to watch out for out-flanking manouvers on every 100km sector or so... it would also place upon the player burdens that would hardly be called 'fun'.

While I agree that a transition has to be made away from the "Province" system we must also keep in mind this : the player, in HOI at least, doesn't fight the battles, his generals and divisions do.The player, in the HOI grand strategic game,only makes the decisions about who fights where and when and also decides the nation's production and research priorities.

For example,if any one of you played in Multiplayer, you would realize that air and naval combat actually require an inordinate amount of baby-sitting, when these areas should be abstractized as well.

Paradox already fell into the "lower scale" pitfall in the Naval Combat Engine. Proof of that is the fact that subs cannot sneak near an Aircraft Carrier since the naval combat is more of a WWI or pre-WWI style where two fleets (stacks) face each other at the farthest possible distance and just fire away.

The whole "firing distance" thing is was a tempting,poisonous, flavour thing that ended up screwing things up around edges. That is because an extremely low level issue (firing distance) was given a grand-strategic importance...when it's really not the case.It is important,but not central.

The inclusion of "firing distance" as a centeripiece element in naval combat is about as big a mistake as including Aircraft cannon ranges and make it the determining factor in air combat. Or make the tank gun ranges the determining factor in land combat.

And the consequences for "firing distance" being the core of naval combat when it shouldn't? A fleet with ONE BB will never harm an SS fleet. An SS fleet will never harm even a single escort of a CV fleet...I could go on.

And while the idea behind this thread is good, you are in danger of falling in the same pit: giving tactical/operational level elements grand strategic importance.

having tactical Combat mechanics while only able to play in strategic level won't hurt, it just make the strategy more sophisticated and possible for minors to play without exploits.

in current game the naval battles only end up with the side with more powerful vessels win, which is not the case in WW2, in real life a few destroyers might sunk a heavy cruiser while not possible in HOI2.

 

[hellfish6]

I can concede that this might not be the best idea I've ever had. That said, I think some of it is still applicable. Provinceless combat is still a very real thing to strive for in HOI3 - think of something like a WWII version of the latest of the Total War series. While we can probably do without the tactical battles, we should be able to move our armies around the map as we see fit, so that two opposing armies can occupy the same province at the same time and not necessarily fight with each other.

I think that would be a good end-goal for HOI3, especially if we're going to be forced to have it in 3D. Right now in EU3, I see *no* benefit that a 3D map offers the game over the old 2D map. Total War uses a 3D map and, in my opinion, uses it effectively because the army movement and combat on the strategic level use a province-free system. It is also an improvement for logistics - the Total War series utilizes roads and shipping lanes on its 3D map. HOI3 could benefit from this as well - roads, rails and convoys.

Theoretically we'd also be able to build airbases wherever we want to, model beaches at specific points on a coastline (not just the whole province), and maybe even offer 3D representation of air units (I think of a bubble around and airbase to show the radius of action of an air unit - i.e. it can attack anything within it's bubble). In this way you could, if so desired, model altitude for aircraft as well. If your fighters have combat ceilings of, say, 10,000m your enemy might send bombers at 12,000m to hit you, forcing you to develop newer and better fighters and/or AAA.

 

[Radu]

Heh...I didn't say you should give up.However the direction and execution do not always overlap, so don't despair.

Let me show you:

So you want battles to be "anchored" in terrain features rather than generalized 'blots'? Good,that's not an issue.But since HOI is a grand strategic game you'll need to have Battlegroup-vs-Battlegroup battles.

What's the single biggest issue with this approach?

The fact that battlegroups, now that you are fighting in 'naked' terrain,need to cover their alloted front sector.

So what needs to be done is determine what is the maximum width of frontline that a division/brigade can cover-> density.

So if a battlegroup has less than optimal density, it will receive severe combat penalties (the outflanking manouver described in the hypothetical jamaican campaign).

Conversely,if you have too high density like 10 divs on Guam or some other such ridiculous extremes, you will get combat penalties as well.

And here you have it. The density idea is actually borrowed from "The Operational Art of War III", but it does bear a lot of relevance here.

So,as you can see, it's not a lost cause.

Here's a tip: I've watched the guys at the CORE2 mod at work and what they aren't afraid of doing is wipe the old vanilla tech trees clean and make up their own that suit their needs.

So can you.

If you feel the idea is really worth it, go back to the drawing board as many times as you need to.So what if you go it wrong the first time around? I'd like to see somebody,anybody that does get it the first time around,but let's be serious... No one makes the first jump Does that mean you aren't the one?

 

[hellfish6]

Heh.. I play a lot of TOAW III too. I guess my ideal game would be a hybrid between HOI2 and TOAW III, with a couple enhancements to each.

I think a zone of control for each battlegroup could work. The Total War and TOAW III, along with other games, work that way. ZOC could be affected by density - i.e. how many units (battalions, brigades, divisions) are in that battlegroup. The more units, the bigger the ZOC.

If Paradox went to a provinceless combat system, they'd probably have to break up the game world somehow - into either pixels (like Point of Attack or TacOps), hexes (TOAWIII) or squares (Total War). This would allow you to say a battlegroup of five divisions has X pixels/hexes/squares for it's zone of control, whole another battlegroup with two brigades has Y pixels/hexes/squares.

Once an enemy force goes into any ZOC, combat occurs as per normal HOI mechanics. If you move a battlegroup into the ZOCs of two separate enemy ZOCs, you initiate combat with both of those enemy battlegroups (and probably incur some kind of penalty for it just like you do in HOI2 now when you have two units from different provinces attacking an enemy in another province).

 

[Balesir]

I like the density idea (and agree TOAW III is a fine game - my choice if I want Tac/Op action!). How about building on that and the other 'more tactical battles' thread that is going around with 'formations'. Formations work a bit like in the Sid Meier 'Gettysburg' series - you just place the divisions in a force in a grid with some in the front line, some in a second line and some in deep reserve. Possibly even a 'skirmish' or 'scouting' line out front. This is basically a way to reduce density by going deep instead of wide - only front line units fight, but when they get roughed up they swap out with second line units, and so on.

 

[unmerged(73469)]

I have a question here, too, hellfish.
If this is using the Battalion system, would i say be able to detach one or two battalions and send them to take out some partisans nerby instead of sending the whole division?

 

[hellfish6]

Nah, too micromanagey. If it was a tactical or operational level game, sure. But this is strategic/grand strategic.

 

[Lennartos]

i was searching for a solution for the force attack you propose.

Do any of you know of a methematical description or some code one could use to make a "proof of cencept" of this idea?
what i need is a method of calculating borders based on force points.
(when 2 armys met one with 1 INF and one with 2 ARM.. where would the border be?)

do you understand what i mean?

 

[pan9t0n9]

peacetime borders

perhaps in order to signify borders during peacetime, the background color of each country could be slightly different, much like hearts of iron right now. however, liberating countries might become a bit problematic, although i suppose you could define liberated countries by what cities exist within their borders. but definitely a great idea. it needs to be fleshed out, of course, but it's a great start

 

[RBM11]

How would garrisons work?

 

[henryjai]

I have a question here, too, hellfish.
If this is using the Battalion system, would i say be able to detach one or two battalions and send them to take out some partisans nerby instead of sending the whole division?

maybe it's automatically done by pressing a single button it would be good.

 

[Dark Scipio]

Really to bad this will not be part of Hearts of Iron 3

 

[Miihkali]

Really to bad this will not be part of Hearts of Iron 3

Well, actually I like more province based system, only bad thing in it is that there have to be literally thousands of provinces to have enough good map...

 

[hellfish6]

Thought it's not a provinceless system, I am encouraged by the news that HoI3 will have 10,000 land provinces. This should be pretty useful.

 

[Luka]

Thought it's not a provinceless system, I am encouraged by the news that HoI3 will have 10,000 land provinces. This should be pretty useful.

Just get that number up to 1 province per pixel and we're there