The Question of Combat Width - 40

[P3D]

The other issue is that the 80 standard combat width front number does fluctuate with terrain. Moving in terrain other than plains, urban, and desert will reduce allowable combat width. A 40 gets caught in a reduced width front and it is alone. A 10 or 20 width can still be reinforced. 40 width has it's place, and in open terrain it is probably better in the long run. But if you can reinforce in bad terrain, lower widths are probably better.

No, it does not fluctuate. That was some leftover from the beta that was not edited out of the wiki until late.

 

[Dalwin]

The other issue is that the 80 standard combat width front number does fluctuate with terrain. Moving in terrain other than plains, urban, and desert will reduce allowable combat width. A 40 gets caught in a reduced width front and it is alone. A 10 or 20 width can still be reinforced. 40 width has it's place, and in open terrain it is probably better in the long run. But if you can reinforce in bad terrain, lower widths are probably better.

No, it does not fluctuate. That was some leftover from the beta that was not edited out of the wiki until late.

I really wish it did fluctuate by terrain and in such a fashion that it was not in conveniently round numbers. You would have to use the defender's position to determine the terrain effect, obviously.

I'd like to see it such that plains were defaulted to 100w for the first avenue of attack +50 for each subsequent. Make forest and hills be 70/35. Mountains and swamps could be 56/28. Now I just pulled these numbers from thin air and have not done any serious analysis of what exact numbers would be best. Plains should be higher than the current 80/40 to ensure that the overall average was not too severely reduced since that would have a larger effect on balance and the pacing of the war.

In such a system I also picture river crossings as only getting half the normal width, though in a mixed scenario a crossing would never be considered the primary avenue of attack. For example a two prong attack into plains with one of them being across a river should result in a battle width of 125 (100 + 50/2).

I also picture having width reduced by bad weather.

Such a system would put an end once and for all to these discussions of which width is optimal since questions of balance between weapon types and production would clearly be predominant.

 

[Opanashc]

I really wish it did fluctuate by terrain and in such a fashion that it was not in conveniently round numbers. You would have to use the defender's position to determine the terrain effect, obviously.

Think of terrain penalties as width reduction.

 

[Dalwin]

Think of terrain penalties as width reduction.

No, not at all. Width reduction applies to both attacker and defender. The terrain penalties are only against the attacker. Your analogy is false.

 

[Opanashc]

No, not at all. Width reduction applies to both attacker and defender. The terrain penalties are only against the attacker. You analogy is false.

True.
Looked up terrain in files. Saw stuff like:

jungle = {
color = { 127 191 0 }
movement_cost = 1.5
attrition = 0.3
combat_width = -0.25
ai_terrain_importance_factor = 6.0
sound_type = forest

units = {
attack = -0.3
#movement = -0.3
}

enemy_army_bonus_air_superiority_factor = -0.25
}

 

[Meglok]

No, it does not fluctuate. That was some leftover from the beta that was not edited out of the wiki until late.

Pretty sure you are incorrect. Look at code below from the common/terrain file.

forest = {
color = { 89 199 85 }
movement_cost = 1.5
combat_width = -0.20
ai_terrain_importance_factor = 5.0
sound_type = forest

units = {
attack = -0.2
#movement = -0.2
}

enemy_army_bonus_air_superiority_factor = -0.1
}

hills = {
color = { 248 255 153 }
movement_cost = 1.5
combat_width = -0.33
ai_terrain_importance_factor = 3.0
sound_type = desert

units = {
attack = -0.3
#movement = -0.2
}
enemy_army_bonus_air_superiority_factor = -0.05
}

mountain = {
color = { 124 135 125 }
movement_cost = 2.0
attrition = 0.4
combat_width = -0.66
ai_terrain_importance_factor = 10.0
sound_type = desert

units = {
attack = -0.6
#movement = -0.4
}

enemy_army_bonus_air_superiority_factor = -0.10
}

plains = {
color = { 255 129 66 }
movement_cost = 1.0
ai_terrain_importance_factor = 0.1
sound_type = plains
}

urban = {
color = { 155 0 255 }
movement_cost = 1.2
ai_terrain_importance_factor = 4.0
sound_type = plains

units = {
attack = -0.3
#movement = -0.2
}

enemy_army_bonus_air_superiority_factor = -0.50
}

jungle = {
color = { 127 191 0 }
movement_cost = 1.5
attrition = 0.3
combat_width = -0.25
ai_terrain_importance_factor = 6.0
sound_type = forest

units = {
attack = -0.3
#movement = -0.3
}

enemy_army_bonus_air_superiority_factor = -0.25
}

marsh = {
color = { 76 96 35 }
movement_cost = 2.0
attrition = 0.5
combat_width = -0.25
ai_terrain_importance_factor = 8.0
sound_type = forest

units = {
attack = -0.4
#movement = -0.4
}
}

desert = {
color = { 255 127 0 }
movement_cost = 1.05
attrition = 0.2
ai_terrain_importance_factor = 8.0
sound_type = desert
}

The above is straight from the file. Notice the bold modifiers. And I know that last night when i was playing around with tactics to invade Iceland my combat width was down to 60 on a beach invasion into either hills or mountains (can't remember offhand which).

 

[Dalwin]

True.
Looked up terrain in files. Saw stuff like:

Those references to combat width in the terrain effects are left over from an earlier beta build and are not actually active code. That concept was removed prior to initial release. I disagree with that decision but I am sure they had their reasons even if those reasons are not obvious to us.

Sorry @Meglok but you are wrong on this one. It absolutely does not deviate by terrain. This is very easily tested in game. The fact that you did not already know this tells me that you don't often spend much time looking closely at the battle details when you play or else you'd have noticed this patter for yourself.

 

[Opanashc]

Those references to combat width in the terrain effects are left over from an earlier beta build and are not actually active code. That concept was removed prior to initial release. I disagree with that decision but I am sure they had their reasons even if those reasons are not obvious to us.

Just tested. Attacking into mountains gives 60 width, into forest - 80 width. So the modifier is present somewhere...

 

[Dalwin]

Just tested. Attacking into mountains gives 60 width, into forest - 80 width. So the modifier is present somewhere...

Are you certain that there was no tactic employed by either general that altered width?

 

[Opanashc]

Are you certain that there was no tactic employed by either general that altered width?

I thought there weren't, but I was wrong.
Shamed.

 

[Dalwin]

I thought there weren't, but I was wrong.
Shamed.

Well I gave you enough benefit of the doubt that I actually loaded into a saved game to confirm my claim. I am glad we can at least agree on such basic mechanical facts if not always on more philosophical issues such as which approach is best.