comabt options in new games

[Chromos]

Hi!
have a look:
napoleons-campaigns-ii-early screens

I posted over here a question in the general discussions part of the forum:
Napoleon's-Campaigns-II


As some already asked for a city battle map lately:
The-city-battle-map=city+battle

Wouldn't it be really nice if AI could use it and the player could also take action there more indeep.
Not only in cities but in provinces in general as we see now in CKII and the new Napoleon game.

See CKII below:

So combat events could be made more visible to the players and we would see a nice breakthrough.
Depending on the new(!) unit stances for unit types(researchable new stances, so tanks would be used as pure inf support initially and later get dfferent stances that represent the usage of newer tactics..) and the stances for the 4 areas left flank/center/right flank/reserve, would make the tactical part of the strategic game more interesting, no?
(4 areas left flank/center/right flank/reserve, wich each 3 stances, or the same we have now for the HQ's..)

At least it could be implemented in a cool way that new tactics and equipment is superior to "mass low stuff"..

What do others think?
And please no comment like that the current engine can't handle it for the many battles of HOI3 and this is a useless post etc..
It's about future(!) possibilities and if it would be FUN to have them ingame..

Cheers,
Chromos

 

[Alex_brunius]

We already have flanks in battles...

(If your not attacking from several provinces your doing something wrong).

Stances looks just like combat events, which are also researchable and we already have ^^

 

[Chromos]

We already have flanks in battles...

(If your not attacking from several provinces your doing something wrong).

Stances looks just like combat events, which are also researchable and we already have ^^

Hi Alex_brunius,
please look at the pic above and than look at a pic of HOI3 combat again.

It is not about that anyone could imagine that an additional attack from another prov could be seen as another flank..
(Or that anyone does know about how to conduct battles in HOI3 right now..)

It is about how combat is handled and(!) shown in the gui. And about how we could have that changed in a more enjoyable way..

For HOI3 that would mean that you get a more detailed combat window and more infuence on the tactical scale(the combat).

If you are fine with how it is now, then ok.
I would like to have such more infos/possibilities like in CKII and the new Napolean game in HOI3 too.

Cheers,
Chromos

 

[Raz0r]

I completly agree with you Chromos. A little more visualization and info about how the battle is going on could bring those bloody stats to life

It should at least be possible to choose which units are on which flank or which ones are reserve units. Different stances for the units would add more flavour and i can imagine using them on the French border when playing Germany but not really on the way to Moscow...so the possible positive effects shouldn't be too critical. It shouldn't ruin the game if you don't care that much about them.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I think flanks and stances suit medieval games better then WW2 games though.

After all it's not like the soldiers were marched to the enemy and placed in a battle line with tanks on the flanks really... Tanks were used in concentration right in the middle to break a hole and pour through into the rear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerepunkt#Schwerpunkt

 

[Rancher]

For me, and it is only my opinion, I would prefer resources and memory were used to improve the game as it is rather than introduce new ideas such as these. But, as I say thats just my opinion.

 

[Chromos]

I completly agree with you Chromos. A little more visualization and info about how the battle is going on could bring those bloody stats to life

It should at least be possible to choose which units are on which flank or which ones are reserve units. Different stances for the units would add more flavour and i can imagine using them on the French border when playing Germany but not really on the way to Moscow...so the possible positive effects shouldn't be too critical. It shouldn't ruin the game if you don't care that much about them.

Hi,
exactly my intention. And all what it woul need should be already in the game or be available for the other clausewitz games and would only need some adaption of the code.
So no big task to implement but maybe quite fun to play with.

Cheers!
Chromos

 

[unmerged(264432)]

I think flanks and stances suit medieval games better then WW2 games though.

After all it's not like the soldiers were marched to the enemy and placed in a battle line with tanks on the flanks really... Tanks were used in concentration right in the middle to break a hole and pour through into the rear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerepunkt#Schwerpunkt

Quite wrong. Tanks that poured through a breach without worrying about their flanks tended to turn into burning coffins for the crewmen.

In WWII and in wars since then, the defense of an armies flanks is very much a factor.

 

[spinoza013]

I think the battle GUI could be vastly improved .. Even if it's just to clarify more which side is getting which bonuses. But as a previous poster suggested anything that slowed down processing power or required anymore micromanagement should be avoided.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Quite wrong. Tanks that poured through a breach without worrying about their flanks tended to turn into burning coffins for the crewmen.

Like the Germans in France 1940, yes they did pour through a breach without worrying about their flanks

And that gamble did work due to the inactivity and panic in the French command.

I'm not saying flanks wasn't important just that outflanking the enemy army and collapsing their flanks on a province sized battlefield was obsolete thinking in WW2 and belong in the medieval or at least pre WW1 era.

WW1 and after the battlefield was based on an entire continuous front. There are no Armies marching together or "flanks" of these local force concentrations like earlier times.

 

[Chromos]

Like the Germans in France 1940, yes they did pour through a breach without worrying about their flanks

And that gamble did work due to the inactivity and panic in the French command.

I'm not saying flanks wasn't important just that outflanking the enemy army and collapsing their flanks on a province sized battlefield was obsolete thinking in WW2 and belong in the medieval or at least pre WW1 era.

WW1 and after the battlefield was based on an entire continuous front. There are no Armies marching together or "flanks" of these local force concentrations like earlier times.

Well German High Command was very(!) worried about the flanks and gave stop command that were just ignored..

And if flanks were not important on the tactical role, why was the tactical usage in the Panzer Divs of Germany that way, that the Panthers/Tigers lead the center and the PzIV's had to protect the flanks of that attack?..

A flank is just a side of the actual main fighting, and if weak, in every fight a good place for a counterattack..
The base mechanics of fighting didn't change at all in general. And never will..

So the side next to the breakthrough attemp of the Panzers would be the flank of this attack and has to be taken care of.
At least to hold the breaktrough open, so that the tanks would not be trapped themself.
This could also be simulated nicely with the suggested ideas. And at least the Provinces are about 25*25 or 30*30km. Enough place to maneuvre around..
Breakthroughs were mostly achieved on a smaler part of the front, like some km and not on the whole of 25km(Even that happend but was not the "normal" width of that days and had special conditions.)

Cheers,
Chromos

 

[Alex_brunius]

And if flanks were not important on the tactical role, why was the tactical usage in the Panzer Divs of Germany that way, that the Panthers/Tigers lead the center and the PzIV's had to protect the flanks of that attack?..

A flank is just a side of the actual main fighting, and if weak, in every fight a good place for a counterattack..
The base mechanics of fighting didn't change at all in general. And never will..

So first your saying that they put the much weaker tanks to protect the flanks, and then that the flanks can't be weak? Sorry but I fail to see your point here.

Id say that's quite different from medieval style fighting where the elite cavalry was placed on the flanks and it was suicide to have the strongest mobile units going into the enemy center...

You just can't compare WW2 with Medieval war.
So why limit a WW2 game with combat mechanics designed to model Medieval field battles? :S

 

[Chromos]

So first your saying that they put the much weaker tanks to protect the flanks, and then that the flanks can't be weak? Sorry but I fail to see your point here.

Id say that's quite different from medieval style fighting where the elite cavalry was placed on the flanks and it was suicide to have the strongest mobile units going into the enemy center...

You just can't compare WW2 with Medieval war.
So why limit a WW2 game with combat mechanics designed to model Medieval field battles? :S

I(!) never compared with medieval stuff. Thats just your "thinking" here..

And if I can't make myself clear here or we just misunderstand each other doesn't change a thing that I would like to have a better visual representation of the fight in a prov and you maybe not..
I think at least I got it right that you don't like to have such a visual enhancement.. No need to discuss "tactical believings"..

Cheers,
Chromos

 

[unmerged(264432)]

This is something that seems so elementary...it makes it hard to explain here.

Failure to defend the flanks can lead to encirclement. Encirclement cuts supply (communications as well before radio). The Wehrmacht (and every form of the Prussian army since Frederick) strove to envelop both flanks of the enemy in front of them and annihilate them in a battle of encirclement. All of these things have German buzz-words attached to them. I could toss them around, but no need, we all know them.

There is a reason we all know them.

That is because you do not leave a flank dangling in the open.

 

[Filou]

I think flanks and stances suit medieval games better then WW2 games though.

After all it's not like the soldiers were marched to the enemy and placed in a battle line with tanks on the flanks really...

This

WW1 and after the battlefield was based on an entire continuous front. There are no Armies marching together or "flanks" of these local force concentrations like earlier times.

and this.

Mechanics devised for pitch battles of Army vs Army should be kept away from games that want to represent warfare in the age of continuous, mobile fronts.

That's why HoI1 failed compared to HoI2. HoI1 kept the mechanics of pitch battles from the EU series whereas HoI2 introduced the "movement is attack concept" that better represents the new way of warfare.

If they can implement a better visualization of what's going on sure, but the player should not be tasked to organize his divisions in left/right/center/reserve for each battle.

 

[Chromos]

This
and this.

Mechanics devised for pitch battles of Army vs Army should be kept away from games that want to represent warfare in the age of continuous, mobile fronts.

That's why HoI1 failed compared to HoI2. HoI1 kept the mechanics of pitch battles from the EU series whereas HoI2 introduced the "movement is attack concept" that better represents the new way of warfare.

If they can implement a better visualization of what's going on sure, but the player should not be tasked to organize his divisions in left/right/center/reserve for each battle.

It is amazing to me that my intention seems so hard to understand by some..

Another try:
So you conduct an assault/attack/breaktrough.

You could attack over the whole front all along all provs..
You could set points of stronger attacks(Schwerpunkt).

Regardless how big/wide your main attack line is. At the border of it, are the flanks..
Be it in the prov iteself or at the end of all attacking provs..

Now HOI3 wise:
If you do an attack in one prov but the two next to them not. Then you could see these as the flanking provs of this attack.
You attack on a whole width of 30km(!) Thats WWI style!
WWII Breaktroughs/Schwerpunkt was more about 1-3km in width at first.. So that would be all in one prov and also the flanks of that attack would be in that prov..

Ger doctrine would be to achive much such "little breakthoughs" as possible in each prov and exploit them.
Now the current combat events could be shown in the prov itself.

The Prov setup for the forces "left/right/center/reserve" should of course not be more micro. It would be a hell to organize.. Think about MP..
It should be only a partition of the prov. And with stances wich can be influenced automatically by techs you could set up you usual line of "in deep" or wide etc.

Lets imagine there is just one Div in the prov.
Now that Div would have to cover the whole prov.
It would be much easier to break such a lines as if the prov would be defended by 3 Divs, where each could defend one "sector"(left/right/center).
(So a new combat system could give a bonus to the attacker or a malus to the defender for such a fight..)
Or maybe corps units stationed(like AT/hvy AA) wich would bolster the defense even more..
And even harder if there is a reserve at hand that could reinforce the front lines..
(So that would give a bonus to the whole prov. <-a little change in the combat system..)

If one sector gets "beaten", then the others are in more danger too(combat bonus/malus), if the reserves(if ther are any) can't help in time.
But you can visually simulate/show the combat in a more intense way as if you watch only to a progess-bar..

If you attack on the whole front of several prov, then there would be no big change in gameplay feeling at first. Also not if only one prov attacks.
It could be handled by the engine that hard units allways would be positioned in the center, but that would also be only "cosmetical" at first.

But with the new combat window it could be made just more visual(!).
And you could also add some more "combat events" and implement them nicely. A "counter attack-event" could lead to something like the combat moves in the attacking prov, and the initial attacking forces are on the def suddely.
If the initial defender has enough units, he could exploit that situation..Depending on the stance that is choosen..
Much more unstatic lines.

In the end it would add more flavour/"realism"/fun to the game while the "complexity" would be the same as with current stances of the HQ-System for the player.

And after all mostly be visual changes with possibility of adding also some changes to the comabt system.
And these changes to the combat system are also only modifiers, so no big change for the calculation and CPU-wise..

I hope I gave a better description of what I've in mind when I saw the pictures of Napoleonic/CKII and think of HOI3..

Cheers!
Chromos

 

[Filou]

Sorry, but I still see propositions of adding elements that do not fit for the scale of the game. So yes, it's hard to understand why you want to add an ad-hoc level of tactical elements in a grand strategic game. Especially when you seem to propose an increases in battle management.

Or in other words, you seem to want a game that is about battles when this game is about campaigns.

Lets imagine there is just one Div in the prov.
Now that Div would have to cover the whole prov.
It would be much easier to break such a lines as if the prov would be defended by 3 Divs, where each could defend one "sector"(left/right/center).

How is this easier than just letting the lone division defend the whole province?
Seriously, how is breaking down 1 province into 3 sectors and 1 division into 3 (or 4) elements simpler than dealing with 1 division in 1 province?

I don't mind the progress bar, becasue I've got other things to do than monitor one single battle.

The original idea makes sense for a Napoleonic game because whole campaign were more or less decided by one singe big battle. But it's just not appropriate for a WWII game on the scale of HoI.

 

[Chromos]

Sorry, but I still see propositions of adding elements that do not fit for the scale of the game. So yes, it's hard to understand why you want to add an ad-hoc level of tactical elements in a grand strategic game. Especially when you seem to propose an increases in battle management.

Or in other words, you seem to want a game that is about battles when this game is about campaigns.

How is this easier than just letting the lone division defend the whole province?
Seriously, how is breaking down 1 province into 3 sectors and 1 division into 3 (or 4) elements simpler than dealing with 1 division in 1 province?

I don't mind the progress bar, becasue I've got other things to do than monitor one single battle.

The original idea makes sense for a Napoleonic game because whole campaign were more or less decided by one singe big battle. But it's just not appropriate for a WWII game on the scale of HoI.

Hi Filou,
I don't know if you didn't read my post carefully enough or if you just like to twist my words? :wacko:
But, I never wrote that the whole system would be easier as the current..
That example above with "easier" was in context of the breaktrough in a prov. And that is still easier to break trough if there is just one div defending it as if there were 3 divs defending it.
That is in general still working as with the current system.

It would be much easier to break such a lines as if the prov would be defended by 3 Divs, where each could defend one "sector"(left/right/center).

We have already the tactical lvl simulated in the game. Very abstracted but implemented through the combat events and Org etc.
So I want now just a bit more visual implementation of that part and suggest also a little change that would also allow for some more tactical elements of that time. wich would be handleed by the engine through the stances and modifiers like the current system.
So in the end it would be able to buff the combat system wich some new features a bit and have nicer battle views..
Just think about the naval battles wich could need an improvement too.. Same for the air battles.

And if I want to play tactical games I play other games. No ned to turn a grand strategy game into one. But cool if a grand strategy game takes care of the basics of fight in its combat system..

And after all, I've the impression now, that If I would go more along your opinion, that even the current combat window is not getting attention from you beacuse you have other things to do amd thus it could be even more dumped down/simplified..
At least I think I got it now, that you doesn't wan't more immersion/improvement in that part of the game.
Thank you for expressing your opinion.

Maybe I should delete the pics from the OP as that seems to be too confusing for the imagination of some people?
Should I draw a rough new combat window myself?
I still hope that some more show up who could imagine that even a slightly improved combat system would be cool, as would it to have a more visual battle system..

Cheers,
Chromos

 

[Cybvep]

One thing which definitely could benefit from stances is the number of divs of the defender that are used in combat. It's ridiculous that ALL of my divs absolutely either have to engage 1 enemy division or retreat to another province. The defender simply has too little control over this. Stances could be useful for the attacker as well, i.e. more aggressive stances could potentially give you higher casualties but quicker victory, but I think that the top priority should be to make the system less painful for the defender.

 

[Corner79]

Quite wrong. Tanks that poured through a breach without worrying about their flanks tended to turn into burning coffins for the crewmen.


In WWII and in wars since then, the defense of an armies flanks is very much a factor.

Thank you good sir for pointing this out to Mr. Alex Brunius


Any student of history would know that flanks are always going to be an issue, it doesn't matter how advanced we get. Your individual body has flanks, ever get into a fist fight against three dudes? You understand flanks better in that situation I can assure you.

Have you not read Sun Tsu? Rommel? Schwarzkopf? Flanks WILL ALWAYS EXIST IN COMBAT!




To Chromos,

Great post and Idea, I to believe this should be expanded in HOI3 as well!