Date: Tue Jun 1 20:31:36 2004
Sender: Andy Dolphin
In fleshing out the details of the ground system, there's one thing I'd like
some additional discussion about: the nature of ground combat.
I think we're mostly happy with the general proposed system:
-overall turn length is one month.
-no armor/infantry distinction due to the unit, time, and distance scales in
use.
-the turn will effectively be divided into some number of sub-turns, with each
unit given a chance to move one hex or fight one battle per sub-turn.
-units can receive partial damage, rather than being 100% or eliminated.
In terms of ground combat, the obvious questions are (1) who is attacked, (2)
who can attack, (3) who chooses retreat directions, and (4) who chooses
defender losses. One at a time...
1. For the sake of simplicity, I think all units in one (and only one) hex
should be the defenders in a single combat. If you want to attack two hexes,
you can do so with two combats. I can't think of any instances in which a
single "battle" extended over more than a 100km front. (The entire Normandy
invasion, which consisted of 5 independent landings, took place over a 100km
front. The German penetration in May 1940 happened in a 50km front.)
2. Here's a tough one. Most wargames let the attacker "gang up". In other
words, if the front line is completely straight, the attacker can attack every
second hex along the front line with two hexes of units per attack, thus
artifically increasing the advantage. (Thus most wargame combat tables are
designed to require artificially high attacking strength.) To make this more
realistic, I'm thinking that each attack should thus consist of units in a
single hex attacking units in a single hex, unless all attacking units are
adjacent to no other enemy units, or unless the defending unit is surrounded.
Note that more than one unit per hex will be permitted, so it will still be
possible to concentrate attacking units for a major thrust.
3. This is another tough one. The two most logical approaches are something
like:
a. Defender chooses retreat hex, but that hex cannot be adjacent to any
attacking unit unless necessary.
b. Attacker chooses retreat hex, but that hex cannot be adjacent to any
attacking unit unless necessary. If possible the retreat hex should be
unoccupied.
c. Some sort of automatic retreat -- straight back if possible, adjacent to
straight back (attacker's choice) if not.
I'm thinking that option (b) is the best for two reasons. One, for e-mail
play, it relieves a case in which the defender would need to intervene during
the turn. Second, if the attacker wins a battle so badly that the defender has
to fall back, the attacker usually has some choice in which way he "chases" the
defender. The rationale for (a) would be to let the defender fall back in an
orderly manner, though I think this could be accomplished by some constraints
on hexes chosen by the attacker (as the defender shouldn't have *too* much
control over what direction routed units go).
4. Remembering that a battle takes place over a 100km front, the attacker
pretty much gets to choose where he puts his strength and thus should be the
one to determine which defending units get damage. For example, if there are
two defending units and the result calls for one damage, the attacker should
choose which one is damaged. The only case I can think it would matter is if
there are units of multiple types/nationalities present, in which case the
weaker ones should probably take the losses first. For example, if one French
and one British unit are attacked together, the French should take the first
loss, the British the second, and so on.
Comments?
Date: Wed Jun 2 08:48:18 2004
Sender: Nathan Dilday
I'm okay with most of that, but I did want to raise a point on 4): If we assume
that the X defending units in a hex are each placed on the front line, your
method makes sense. But isn't it equally valid to assume that unit A is manning
the front lines with unit B in reserve, implying that the defender should be
allowed to determine the order of damage resolution?
Date: Wed Jun 2 11:06:35 2004
Sender: Stephen Thompson
I agree to some extent - perhaps the order that the units are stacked should be
important, indicating front to back ordering of the troops? Perhaps an
airstrike should be able to choose which one is attacked, but ground forces
would have to fight through the unit of the defender's choosing.
Date: Thu Jun 3 05:30:25 2004
Sender: David Rogers
Well, there are both cases. Especially depending on the objective. Sometimes
the objective is to destroy the enemy, sometimes it is to take a hold key
geographical features (A bridge, a beachhead etc.)
Since this game is primarily strategic in nature (as opposed to tactical)
perhaps a mix would be optimal.
So for City, Fortress and amphibious (beachhead, river) attacks the defender
has the choice of which units are first to take damage, and for other terrain
the Attacker would have the choice.
Perhaps each side could determine an order of battle though?
Date: Thu Jun 3 14:25:29 2004
Sender: Phil Bradley
Andy,
1. sounds fine.
2. I have a few concerns especially given that there will be no distinction b/t
armor/infantry etc.. Is there going to be a good mix of units some more mobile
than others? Without knowing the force pools it is almost impossible to make
any complete recomendation on any of these points. What I forsee as a
possibility with the system you mention is a russian defender stacking single
units in line two to three hex rows deep and the germans never being able to
surround nor make a very speedy headway (unless you will allow units to make
multiple attacks.) Per the system you mention I would atleast add the
following condition: Attacker may use units from multiple hexes even if the
second hex is adjacent to enemy forces provided that the adjacent enemy force
is also attacked. Hypothetically then the attacker can mass up on one
defending hex as long as enough forces is available to atleast distract the
enemy forces in adjacent hexes (attacker could take bad odds vs. the adjacent
hex so that he can achieve better odds on the target hex).
3. Many times a defender has fixed positions to fall back on (especially when
they had full knowledge that they faced a superior force). Many times there
are natural places to retreat to such as to a river/forest/mountain. I think
retreat generally should be defender choice but if the attacker scores a severe
enough hit then the attacker should choose. Will retreats always be limited to
one hex retreats???
4. I too lean toward defenders choice as attacker cannot decide which unit is
necessarily front line.. and if you were to make the argument that the forces
are side by side so that it should be attackers choice(which I believe is what
you are saying) I don't think what players would choose would be very
representative as to what would happen in real life. Of course a player
attacking would choose the stronger unit to inflict damage upon. While in real
life the attacker should focus on the weak point on the line (meaning the
weaker unit should take the brunt of the damage).
Date: Thu Jun 3 16:22:35 2004
Sender: Andy Dolphin
Phil, the additional exemption you suggest in (2) is reasonable. There is a
minor loophole in it, so let's leave it an open question pending playtesting.
I certainly hope the scenario you fear would be counterproductive; perhaps this
means that an attack whose odds are high enough that the defenders are
guaranteed to be eliminated should not count against the attackers' movement
(or alternately, that the advance after combat is free).
Retreats will be single-hex retreats. A more realistic option would be that
the defender can pre-program retreats, but in doing so makes his units more
likely to fall back. I'm not sure we want to add that sort of detail though.
Perhaps cases (3) and (4) will be situations in which different rules apply for
e-mail play than in face-to-face. How about something like the following:
Face-to-face: depending on the combat results, the choice of retreat hex goes
to the attacker (if a rout) or defender (if not). Depending on the terrain (as
Steve suggests), the choice of defender losses goes to the attacker (open) or
defender (city).
E-mail: the attacker chooses the retreat hex unless the combat results would
permit the defender to choose and the defender has specified retreat directions
prior to the combat. (The defender's instructions can be as detailed as
desired.) Losses picked at random among full-strength units, then among
damaged units if needed.
I think the face-to-face rules allow for the desired flexibility, while the
e-mail rules prevent the game from getting slowed down. Are these reasonable?
Date: Thu Jun 3 21:44:47 2004
Sender: Phil Bradley
Sounds reasonable to me. I think many of these types of details can be
tweaked/hashed out through playtesting.
Date: Fri Jun 4 11:27:59 2004
Sender: Stephen Thompson
Andy, I understand your reasoning for having no distinction between infantry
and armor, but I really think it is a mistake with respect to the overall
'feel' of the game. I think very most people understand infantry and armor as
fundamentally different, and it would be better to make the game favor those
who use combined arms for battles but allow other tactics rather than make that
the only open.
Date: Fri Jun 4 21:34:46 2004
Sender: Andy Dolphin
Oh boy, I really don't want to go through this again. I'd ask that you read
the 'blitzkrieg' thread, as I point out a lot of the errors in common
interpretation. I'm tired of seeing games unable to model historical campaigns
because they're stuck on the notion of armored breakthroughs; "yet one more"
such game isn't going to pique anyone's interest. Obviously this is something
to mention in the designer's notes, but I'm really keen on opting for the more
realistic option when possible (especially in a case like this where it
shortens the rules, requires fewer counters, and will make the game cheaper to
publish and to purchase).
I'm sure we'll have similar arguements regarding strategic bombing when the air
system gets hashed out...
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
