OT: Area Combat Model

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

OT: Area Combat Model

Post by herwin »

I've been thinking about how I would design a land combat game engine compatible with large hexes and in-hex combat. I think I'd model what's going on in a given hex as percentage land area control. For hexes predominantly land and with neighbouring land hexes, I'd assume the bases to be at the centre of the hex, and base capture would occur when half the land area was captured. For island hexes, I suppose I'd assume that the side without control of the bases would control a resupply/landing beach on the opposite side of the island. Base capture would then occur when all the island was captured. How should I treat peninsulas? Should base capture take place when half the land area is captured or all of it? Or for consistency should I treat island bases as being captured when half the island was captured?

What would people like?
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Bogo Mil
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:11 pm

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by Bogo Mil »

I had thought about a similiar model, too. The base should alwasys fall at 50%, imho. Or there is a random chance between 1/3 and 2/3. If you look at the island battles in the real war - usually the base was not the last place to fall.


The terrain should have two characteristics: Defense bonus and speed.

Clear terrain would be a typical case for high defense bonus and high speed. Attacks - especially by infantery - are very costly in the open, and they are easily repulsed. Inf vs. inf in open terrain leads to WW1-style trench warfare soon. But if an attack is successful, the advance is fast.

Mountains would be high defense bonus and low speed. It is difficult to dislodge the enemy troops in mountains. And even if you have overwhelming power, progress will be slow.

Junge would be low defense bonus and low speed. The attacker can concentrate his forces at a small area. The very restricted line of view (and fire) is a large handicap for the defender. The attacker will advance, even if he doesn't have superior strenght, but advance is very slow. This would probably lead to bloody exchanges of attacks and counterattacks - real jungle warfare.

It's hard to find examples for low defense bonus and high speed. Maybe tundra.

Small islands can be represented by high speed (you don't have to advance very far if the island is small).


If the odds are too imbalanced against the defender, there might be a rout with heavy penalties, e.g. all damaged equipment destroyed. But usually the defender would just be pushed back to another hex if his share control falls too low (e.g. below 10%). If there's no retreat possible (island or cauldron), the defender has to surrender or do a banzai charge, of course.


But such ideas are way beyond the capabilities of the witp engine, I'm afraid. Maybe there will be a completely rewritten witp 2 at some date, but I won't hold my breath...
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

I had thought about a similiar model, too. The base should alwasys fall at 50%, imho. Or there is a random chance between 1/3 and 2/3. If you look at the island battles in the real war - usually the base was not the last place to fall.

You're advising consistency, which does make the game engine easier to write. Basically, the hex has so many square miles of land area. The side with more than 50% of the square miles controls the installations. Once 100% of the hex is controlled, the other side has to retreat down its supply line. If there is no supply line, the retreat priority is 1) an out-of-supply hex with a friendly presence and no enemy presence, 2) a contested hex, 3) a hex with neither side present, and lastly 4) an enemy-occupied hex. If forced to retreat into an enemy-occupied hex, the retreating force must fight its way in. If it fails to capture ground in the enemy-occupied hex, it surrenders. If the hex is an island, the retreating side surrenders.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Ambassador
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by Ambassador »

A few comments and unstructured ideas.
 
Control of the base at 50% might give a cycle of gain&loss of control of the base, when fighting is at this stage.  One day, one side would use it ; next day, the other side would ; then, again the first, and so on, following the attacks and counter-attacks.
Seeing the importance of the control of a base, wouldn't it be better to consider that the side "owning" it puts a more dedicated defence around the installation than elsewhere, so that it's more difficult to capture it ?  "Change of ownership" would then only occur at higher degree of control, such as 60% or 66.7% (75% might be too high).
OTOH, if the % of control is purely figurative, and not representative of actual area, "crossing the 50%" should be much harder than simply progressing from any other point : going from 45 to 55 should be much harder than going from 35 to 45 or from 55 to 65.
 
Moreover, fighting itself may render a base unfit to use when the frontline is too close, due to stray bullets, artillery fire, etc.  So, why not a system in which the base is unusable when the fighting is too close to call (like 40-60 or 45-55) ?  In such a system, the base would be "uncontrolled" for a time.  And anyway, even outside of that bracket, every day of combat should give the possibility of some damage being done to the base - perhaps as soon/long as the other side has at least 10 or 20% of control.  With gradually greater odds for greater damage, at the measure of the loss of control of the hex.
 
 
Finally, I was reading about the invasion of Greece lately, and particularly Crete.  The Fallschirmjaeger there took immediately control of the airbase, with very few control of the countryside beforehand.  Likewise, Guadalcanal campaign saw the Marines at Henderson Field very quickly, before taking the rest of the hex.  If the % of control is based on the area controlled, you'd need to dissociate control of the installation from control of the area, at least so far as not giving an automatic transition of control (like the random chance proposed by Bogo Mil).
If the % of control is figurative, then you need to open the possibility, on the first day of the attack, of giving the attacker control of the installation, and thus getting more than 50% control.
 
 
Lastly, the % of control could actually modify the odds, by restricting the number of troops either side can field, representing the diminishing size of the frontline : maximal around 50% of control for either side, but minimal when the enemy is reduced to a tiny beachhead or redoubt and the numerically superior enemy can't efficiently use all of his units.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by witpqs »

One possibility along some of those those lines is: The base(s) cease to function when more than 1/3 is enemy controlled. Or, certain functions cease (example: maybe bases can hold supplies, but LBA cannot operate, ship repairs are halved, base repairs are quartered, etc.).
User avatar
Japan
Posts: 754
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:45 pm
Location: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by Japan »

ORIGINAL: herwin

I've been thinking about how I would design a land combat game engine


Ah... why not make WITP Real Time Strategy ^^^[:D]


AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&
bigmilt
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:22 pm

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by bigmilt »

little hard to play a rts pbem.
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

A few comments and unstructured ideas.

Control of the base at 50% might give a cycle of gain&loss of control of the base, when fighting is at this stage.  One day, one side would use it ; next day, the other side would ; then, again the first, and so on, following the attacks and counter-attacks.
Seeing the importance of the control of a base, wouldn't it be better to consider that the side "owning" it puts a more dedicated defence around the installation than elsewhere, so that it's more difficult to capture it ?  "Change of ownership" would then only occur at higher degree of control, such as 60% or 66.7% (75% might be too high).
OTOH, if the % of control is purely figurative, and not representative of actual area, "crossing the 50%" should be much harder than simply progressing from any other point : going from 45 to 55 should be much harder than going from 35 to 45 or from 55 to 65.

Moreover, fighting itself may render a base unfit to use when the frontline is too close, due to stray bullets, artillery fire, etc.  So, why not a system in which the base is unusable when the fighting is too close to call (like 40-60 or 45-55) ?  In such a system, the base would be "uncontrolled" for a time.  And anyway, even outside of that bracket, every day of combat should give the possibility of some damage being done to the base - perhaps as soon/long as the other side has at least 10 or 20% of control.  With gradually greater odds for greater damage, at the measure of the loss of control of the hex.


Finally, I was reading about the invasion of Greece lately, and particularly Crete.  The Fallschirmjaeger there took immediately control of the airbase, with very few control of the countryside beforehand.  Likewise, Guadalcanal campaign saw the Marines at Henderson Field very quickly, before taking the rest of the hex.  If the % of control is based on the area controlled, you'd need to dissociate control of the installation from control of the area, at least so far as not giving an automatic transition of control (like the random chance proposed by Bogo Mil).
If the % of control is figurative, then you need to open the possibility, on the first day of the attack, of giving the attacker control of the installation, and thus getting more than 50% control.


Lastly, the % of control could actually modify the odds, by restricting the number of troops either side can field, representing the diminishing size of the frontline : maximal around 50% of control for either side, but minimal when the enemy is reduced to a tiny beachhead or redoubt and the numerically superior enemy can't efficiently use all of his units.

You're suggesting designing in hysteresis. Given that a 2 or 3-1 firepower superiority is needed to advance because the defence is less exposed, I doubt there will that many successful counterattacks.

The base facilities should be left in damaged condition when it changes hands as the result of an assault.

For both Guadalcanal and Crete, the garrison was very weak. I had been considering putting the base facilities at the other end of the island from the landing beach, but the 50% rule is a compromise.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One possibility along some of those those lines is: The base(s) cease to function when more than 1/3 is enemy controlled. Or, certain functions cease (example: maybe bases can hold supplies, but LBA cannot operate, ship repairs are halved, base repairs are quartered, etc.).

These ideas make general sense.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Japan
ORIGINAL: herwin

I've been thinking about how I would design a land combat game engine


Ah... why not make WITP Real Time Strategy ^^^[:D]



Satan, get thee behind me!
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Ambassador
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by Ambassador »

ORIGINAL: herwin

You're suggesting designing in hysteresis. Given that a 2 or 3-1 firepower superiority is needed to advance because the defence is less exposed, I doubt there will that many successful counterattacks.

The base facilities should be left in damaged condition when it changes hands as the result of an assault.

For both Guadalcanal and Crete, the garrison was very weak. I had been considering putting the base facilities at the other end of the island from the landing beach, but the 50% rule is a compromise.
Hmmm, I had to check the meaning of hysteresis[:o] (I'm neither scientist nor native english-speaker), but yes that's what my two cents amount to.[:)]

Crete and Guadalcanal are particular cases and should not set the standard rules, but I'm just saying IMVHO that the possibility for the same result should exist, even if it's rare and subject to a set of conditions.
Anyway, it's your system, so it's your call.[:)]
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: herwin

You're suggesting designing in hysteresis. Given that a 2 or 3-1 firepower superiority is needed to advance because the defence is less exposed, I doubt there will that many successful counterattacks.

The base facilities should be left in damaged condition when it changes hands as the result of an assault.

For both Guadalcanal and Crete, the garrison was very weak. I had been considering putting the base facilities at the other end of the island from the landing beach, but the 50% rule is a compromise.
Hmmm, I had to check the meaning of hysteresis[:o] (I'm neither scientist nor native english-speaker), but yes that's what my two cents amount to.[:)]

Crete and Guadalcanal are particular cases and should not set the standard rules, but I'm just saying IMVHO that the possibility for the same result should exist, even if it's rare and subject to a set of conditions.
Anyway, it's your system, so it's your call.[:)]

I do want to know what people think.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Ambassador
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by Ambassador »

Another thing.  You might take a look at the design of the future Hearts of Iron 3, specifically here : http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=381814.
 
They'll use the concept of frontage, to put a stop on the use of uberstacks (same problems in HoI2 as there are in WitP, aka unrealistic full concentration of forces in one stack).  Basically, massing twenty-three divisions where only two at a time could deploy against opposition should not give autowin.
It's different than stacking rules, since a hex is big.  Imagine a long but narrow island : it could be 3000 sq. miles in area, but with a length of 150 mi for an average width of 20 miles it could allow less units to fight on the front (given an invasion that would start at one end and progress on the whole length) than the same area on a more circular island (say 50*60 miles).  In the first case, there could be space enough to amass troops, but few frontage space to actually use them against the enemy.
Moreover, the actual frontage space could evolve, perhaps partially linked to the % of control of the island (cf the last part of my first post).  Terrain, tactics, respective sizes of each side, etc, could also influence the actual frontage space of the frontline.
 
 
However, all this adds to the complexity of the system, and I don't know what level of complexity you're trying to achieve.
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Another thing.  You might take a look at the design of the future Hearts of Iron 3, specifically here : http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=381814.

They'll use the concept of frontage, to put a stop on the use of uberstacks (same problems in HoI2 as there are in WitP, aka unrealistic full concentration of forces in one stack).  Basically, massing twenty-three divisions where only two at a time could deploy against opposition should not give autowin.
It's different than stacking rules, since a hex is big.  Imagine a long but narrow island : it could be 3000 sq. miles in area, but with a length of 150 mi for an average width of 20 miles it could allow less units to fight on the front (given an invasion that would start at one end and progress on the whole length) than the same area on a more circular island (say 50*60 miles).  In the first case, there could be space enough to amass troops, but few frontage space to actually use them against the enemy.
Moreover, the actual frontage space could evolve, perhaps partially linked to the % of control of the island (cf the last part of my first post).  Terrain, tactics, respective sizes of each side, etc, could also influence the actual frontage space of the frontline.


However, all this adds to the complexity of the system, and I don't know what level of complexity you're trying to achieve.

I'll take a look. What I'm trying to define is a ground combat game engine that would work realistically in a WiTP AE-like game.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Bogo Mil
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:11 pm

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by Bogo Mil »

About disabling the base: It could work that way: If one power controls 100% of the hex, the base is completely working (of course it is...). If the control is 50:50, the base works as if it was size 0. If control is inbetween, the size is reduced. E.g. Japan controls 75% of a base with port 4 and AF 6. The enemy presence reduces the size by 25/50, thus the base works as a Japanese port 2 and AF 3. The same for ressource centers etc. - they work at 50%, too. There wouldn't be much of a difference if the control shifts back and forth several times close to 50% - the base would be useless anyway until one side controls much more than the other.

I think the game should encourage conterattacks. Every substantial attack should gain at least a little bit of ground, even if the attacker is outnumbered by 2:1 or 3:1. If the defender never counterattacks, he should be pushed back slowly.

Events like the landings at Crete or Guadalcanal could be handled by a combination of fort level and defense strentgh: If a base is not well defended and fortified, an enemy landing has a chance to grab a large part of the base immediately. A combination of forts and a sizeable garrision would make this impossible.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1240
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by rader »

Not just base hexes, but all hexes should have a fraction occupied by each side (and maybe by no side for large uncontrolled areas). For example, it should often take several days of fighting to clear any hex. I'm thinking that probably every hex should be treated just like a base hex, except that bases are simply places where you have airfields, ports, resources & factories etc. In particular, every hex can have forts and supply and control by both sides to varying degrees. Maybe give each hex an infrastructure rating that determines how fast you can move through it, fight in it, and trace supplies and resources through it. This could be non-dimensional and totally replace rail lines/roads/paths etc.

Sounds really interesting! Do you need any help? What kind of game are you designing? I design (board) games myself, and we could chat by PM if you were interested.

herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: OT: Area Combat Model

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: rader

Not just base hexes, but all hexes should have a fraction occupied by each side (and maybe by no side for large uncontrolled areas). For example, it should often take several days of fighting to clear any hex. I'm thinking that probably every hex should be treated just like a base hex, except that bases are simply places where you have airfields, ports, resources & factories etc. In particular, every hex can have forts and supply and control by both sides to varying degrees. Maybe give each hex an infrastructure rating that determines how fast you can move through it, fight in it, and trace supplies and resources through it. This could be non-dimensional and totally replace rail lines/roads/paths etc.

Sounds really interesting! Do you need any help? What kind of game are you designing? I design (board) games myself, and we could chat by PM if you were interested.


I'm actually planning to handle all hexes this way, although I will take into account land area only. I haven't worked out the infrastructure details.

Let me come up with a draft first!
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”