Urban combat revised - an idea

[captainroot]

Currently, cities are relatively easy to capture since they all occupy one province: either you crush the enemy/force it to withdraw or you use the AIs stupidity to your advantage and take the city. While I am aware of mods such as Daniels Bigger Cities and Thicc Cities - Continued, I personally think that expanding only certain "important" cities and relegating other cities to be "unimportant" would result in a weird looking map (with "important" cities dominating the landscape like Mega Cities from Judge Dredd) plus the current mechanic makes urban combat a bit unfair because the defender is always within the city while the attacker is always outside the city and has to deal with the terrain outside it (not to mention the other factors) despite the fact that it is also (allegedly) fighting within the city.

While perusing the overview of Stalingrad '42: Southern Russia, June-December, 1942 at BoardGameGeek (BGG), I came across the photograph of urban combat microboards made by one of the users for easier application of the "contested city hexes" rule. A thought occurred to me: what if urban combat were to take place off-map just like naval/air combat does? This would IMHO, declutter the map a bit, make urban combat more realistic by applying separate off-map urban combat-specific mechanics, allow for historic length of urban combat (general rule: the defender controls the city until it is wiped out by the attacker as per Stalingrad) and make historic encirclements (like the obvious one) easier to execute. What do you think?

P.S. Regarding possible questions as to how to deal with the Battle of Moscow and Siege of Leningrad in this system: the off-map urban combat-specific mechanics would provide for battles at the outskirts of the city proper.

 

[Qwerlancer]

I think splitting cities into several tiles is a simpler solution.

If Leningrad has 4-6 urban tiles likes this

with fortifications and entrenched divisions, German players are more likely to lay siege instead of launch frontal assaults. If he really wants a frontal assault he would pay heavy prices. This also applies on other large cities.

 

[Corpse Fool]

what if urban combat were to take place off-map just like naval/air combat does?

I wouldn't say naval combat takes place off map.

attacker is always outside the city and has to deal with the terrain outside it

What do you mean by has to deal with the terrain outside it?

 

[Cavalry]

Cities are already in several tiles: forest, hill.. When defend a city you are defend tiles around it, not just the city tile.

 

[Michael Gladius]

Would this do it for you?

 

[safe-keeper]

I wouldn't mind a separate system for urban fighting, including an off-map system like you describe. We already have a separate system for besieging forts in EU and CK, so why not. Perhaps it could feature a city several spaces in size and battalions fighting over individual tiles. Or a ticking system like CK/EU sieges and those large projects in Stellaris, where every, say, week, there is a random chance of some new development.

 

[mursolini]

Didn`t new supply system already make it a lot harder to attack a city, due to attacker being at the end of their supply line?
Now, urban fighting itself might benefit from further reduction in capabilities of artillery and armor, to simulate how it was often just an infantry grind.

 

[captainroot]

I wouldn't say naval combat takes place off map.

I was referring to this:

as opposed to this:

What do you mean by has to deal with the terrain outside it?

E.g.: If the attacker's division is allegedly fighting within the city limits then why does it still incur the penalty for mud ground condition due to attacking from a province featuring said ground condition, one representing terrain distant by dozens of kilometres from the city's outskirts?

 

[SRhistory]

Didn`t new supply system already make it a lot harder to attack a city, due to attacker being at the end of their supply line?
Now, urban fighting itself might benefit from further reduction in capabilities of artillery and armor, to simulate how it was often just an infantry grind.

Sorry to say but the supply system makes it even easier to take a city. I really like the idea that you get a off map of the city with a couple of tiles to take or expand the city tile to make it more realistic. Current I just send in all to take the capital and first cut of the supply.

edit: really like the idea of what is told in this thread. More or less a game in a game. Play the current well known map until you fight in a big city. Then you go into an off map.

 

[LordWahu]

I've mentioned this idea in a few different threads, and I think I'll bring it up again here

To make combat more dynamic, instead of combat just being a single static point, an extra bar can be added to the main screen representing "Ground Taken". Basically where you are within the province

For a normal province, it starts in the middle. As it goes to either side (probably relative to strength loss, with bonuses or penalties given by various orders like last stand, or tactics like blitz), the terrain penalty (and any entrenchment bonuses) start changing relative to where it is. Basically representing local positions being overrun and units getting into their opponent's positions. If it ever gets to either side, units take extra damage as their positions are basically overrun

Urban provinces (and amphibious) have the attacker start at zero. Attackers would start with a significantly higher penalty, and would take longer to capture it

This makes it more of a slog to capture cities, and make the battle more dynamic, but it would also require only a small UI change and have minimal coding impact

 

[The Colonel]

I don't love the idea of a special break-out map (sounds like UX hell with having to click to reveal and then re-hide them to see the situation around the city), but IMO the biggest issue to make any sort of city siege work is two-fold:

1. The fact that on a single tile units are instantly destroyed when de-orged in combat. Thus the need for sprawling mega-cities (which I really don't like) or the pop-out minimap thing or some other custom mechanic.
2. Every city would need to provide significant independent supply so that encircled units wouldn't be so hopelessly undersupplied. It might be true in big historical sieges that defenders were critically undersupplied, but they still managed to fight back for a long time (and the attackers often also faced great hurdles) whereas in game terms the scenario would generally be very well supplied attackers (they can spread their divs over many provinces) vs. max out of supply defenders since supply stocks only last for days in-game.

 

[Sourlol]

I wouldn't mind a separate system for urban fighting, including an off-map system like you describe. We already have a separate system for besieging forts in EU and CK, so why not. Perhaps it could feature a city several spaces in size and battalions fighting over individual tiles. Or a ticking system like CK/EU sieges and those large projects in Stellaris, where every, say, week, there is a random chance of some new development.

I’ve always liked the idea of doing something similar for island fighting and amphibious landings—though of course there is overlap there.

 

[Corpse Fool]

I was referring to this:

as opposed to this:

I don't think that is a very apt comparison. You're looking at two different screens. For navy, you've opened up the battle screen while for the army, you haven't opened up the battle screen. In both instances, the ships and divisions are physically located somewhere on the map. Nothing is really abstracted in the same way that the airfarce is.

E.g.: If the attacker's division is allegedly fighting within the city limits then why does it still incur the penalty for mud ground condition due to attacking from a province featuring said ground condition, one representing terrain distant by dozens of kilometres from the city's outskirts?

I'll have to admit that I haven't noticed this happening. would you be able to handily provide a screenshot of that as well?

 

[Terracos]

Interesting would be to change just one number (and it would frustrate a lot of people I guess), and that is to increase supply depending on victory point count. Only for that one province with the victory point in it. So that a large city can supply a lot of units locally.

The fact that this would make a lot of players very frustrated because they cant just game the supply could be an argument against it.

 

[SRhistory]

Interesting would be to change just one number (and it would frustrate a lot of people I guess), and that is to increase supply depending on victory point count. Only for that one province with the victory point in it. So that a large city can supply a lot of units locally.

The fact that this would make a lot of players very frustrated because they cant just game the supply could be an argument against it.

Would be a very good one. Makes it harder to get the capitals and other high victory points cities and easy to impl.

 

[safe-keeper]

I don't think that is a very apt comparison. You're looking at two different screens. For navy, you've opened up the battle screen while for the army, you haven't opened up the battle screen. In both instances, the ships and divisions are physically located somewhere on the map. Nothing is really abstracted in the same way that the airfarce is.

The point is that the naval combat screen has a much deeper system (positioning, screens, visibility, inbound ships, disengagement, etc.), while land combat is just two lists of divisions waiting for their turns to roll dice at each other.

For an example more relevant to land combat, consider how EU and CK sieges have a different system from regular land combat. HoI4 urban combat would be a deeper/different system than regular land combat.

 

[Corpse Fool]

The point is that the naval combat screen has a much deeper system (positioning, screens, visibility, inbound ships, disengagement, etc.), while land combat is just two lists of divisions waiting for their turns to roll dice at each other.

The point is that the land battle screen has a much deeper system (tactics, width, planning, reserves/reinforcements, retreat, coordination, hardness, etc) while naval combat is just two lists of ships waiting for their turns to roll dice at each other.

For an example more relevant to land combat, consider how EU and CK sieges have a different system from regular land combat.

I havent played those games so I dont know what you are refering to.

HoI4 urban combat would be a deeper/different system than regular land combat.

It could, sure. I havent said it couldnt. I havent even suggested it shouldnt. I guess it could be said I havent even weighed in on the original topic at all.

 

[Cavalry]

I guess mass urban tides is not much harder but boring than a collection of hill, forest, plain...If you are strong enough to win in 1 tide then the rest is no problem. In real life urban battle is not happen much unless one side is a little stupid. If attacker is not much stronger then they don't attack. The city can be encircled easily then. Paris was never tried to hold twice.

 

[Sourlol]

I guess mass urban tides is not much harder but boring than a collection of hill, forest, plain...If you are strong enough to win in 1 tide then the rest is no problem. In real life urban battle is not happen much unless one side is a little stupid. If attacker is not much stronger then they don't attack. The city can be encircled easily then. Paris was never tried to hold twice.

I’m probably wrong, but wasn’t the reason Paris wasn’t defended by the French and then not “sralingrad-ed” by the Germans was less that the City is impossible to defend, but more that both sides—when in control of the city chose to give it up in order to preserve the architecture, culture, history, etc. of the city.
Didn’t hitler order the general in charge to basically burn it to the ground and said general essentially ignored the order?

 

[Sourlol]

I guess mass urban tides is not much harder but boring than a collection of hill, forest, plain...If you are strong enough to win in 1 tide then the rest is no problem. In real life urban battle is not happen much unless one side is a little stupid. If attacker is not much stronger then they don't attack. The city can be encircled easily then. Paris was never tried to hold twice.

I’m probably wrong, but wasn’t the reason Paris wasn’t defended by the French and then not “sralingrad-ed” was less that the Cory is impossible to defend, but more that both sides—when in control of the city chose to give it up in order to preserve the architecture, culture, history, etc. of the city.
Didn’t hitler order the general in charge to basically burn it to the ground and said general essentially ignored the order?