Anti-Big stack

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Anti-Big stack

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> Anti-Big stack

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Anti-Big stack - 1/20/2009 9:44:42 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

It seems to be a common situation and annoyance that particularly during the later stages of the war in Europe big stacks dominate the main regions while other remain largely undefended. Often huge piles of troops move around from one region to another while the neighbouring regions are completely unmanned. This strategy appears to be unrealistic as in real campaigns despite hot zones there still was a certain number of troops in adjacent and secondary areas.

The proposed (quite simple IMO) solution limits the offensive and defensive effectiveness of massed troops thus reinforcing the idea of troop distribution. The higher the number of units in a particular battle, the higher the penalty on the attack dice roll during firing:

(max. reduction of dice roll of firing unit) = number of own troops in battle; divided by 4; rounded down. � Probability of penalty (random for each unit): random of (0 to max. penalty value)

Until 3 units: no penalty

4 to 7 units: max. penalty applied: (7/4-1 )= 1 ; probability: random(0-1)
thus 50% of the units will have their attack power (adjusted dice roll) reduced by 1 (a very minute reduction to the dice roll)

8 to 11 units: max. penalty: 2 ; probability: random(0-2)
thus 67% of the units will have their dice roll reduced by an average of 1.5

12-15 units: max. penalty: 3 ; probability: random(0-3)
thus 75% of the units will have their dice roll reduced by an average of 2 (equal to the veteran bonus)

and so on, e.g:

24-27 units (often encountered in Russia): max. penalty: 6 �probability: random(0-6)
thus 86% of the units will have their dice roll reduced by an average of 3.5 (equal to one attack die)

52-55 units (typical size for late game situations): max. penalty: 13
thus 92% of the units will have their dice roll reduced by an average of 7 (equal to two attack dice)

The impact on small confrontations (namely naval or aerial engagements and small land battles) will be small, while starting from about 20 units the effect will reach the level of one tech step (one attack die). As both attacking and defending units will be penalized there is a higher incentive to distribute troops across a front line.

A 20 unit stack will not be wiped out as simply by 35 units as currently, as a lot of big-stack units will miss. This could be explained by the simple �too many shooters at the same target� or too high troop concentration limiting proper troop deployment. In particular militia will loose the small offensive capability it now (IMO unjustifiedly) owns.

Post #: 1

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/20/2009 10:24:55 PM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

That's a very cool idea Art. Seems like it might create situations where small numbers of well equipped and/or elite troops could get crowded out of a region by a much larger, more unwieldy mass of attackers ... but without being annihilated; they take some casualties but are able to retreat a fair number of survivors.

It almost sounds like something I've read about in a history book somewhere ...

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 2

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/20/2009 10:42:00 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

Did not think of it this way but true, this would aid to the argument

Also it could happen that this "smaller" army might actually inflict more losses than it would receive.

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 3

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/22/2009 6:00:47 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

I always ask myself - why was the dynamic like such-and-such in real life and how can the game capture that causation?

I haven't yet been able to answer this to my satisfaction on your topic. In part, I think FOW. In the game, even with FOW on, you see too much of your neighbors. The Germans had to defend the supply line to Stalingrad because they couldn't see what was coming from the north (of course, they didn't actually do a very good job of this, but the outcome is not the point ...)

Also something about mobility. Forces nearby could in reality mobilize to help defend a region under attack (maybe a bonus from units in adjacent regions? only if you have operational rail?).

I hesitate to adopt something here because it would be a huge change and it doesn't seem like it would lend itself to intuitive understanding of how combat would play out. I'd hate to change something then regret it for 9 months before the next patch release.

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 4

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/22/2009 9:21:40 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

I would not call a change like this huge as the effect is limited to larger stacks and its impact can be estimated quite well. IMO the "risk-like" troop massing is reducing variety and taking a lot away of the historical feel that this game owns. So if through some "fruitful" discussions an improvement would come out of it - even if the implemetation would look totally different -that would be cool

I understand though that if at all this would be a topic for another patch.

Speaking of FOW - currently a bomb raid deep into enemy territory shows all adjacent regions and even more. Maybe limiting the visible regions to those the aircraft actuall flew into might be an idea worth thinking of?

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 5

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/23/2009 12:27:05 AM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

As noted, I really liked Art's idea; it would have some subtle effects that seem very desirable. It doesn't sound like a big change in mechanics - just playing around with combat modifiers - but it could be a major change in game play, which is kinda the idea. But it would require extensive testing and tweaking; something that hopefully be considered for a patch after the upcoming one (if we are fortunate enough to have more patches).

Take one look at the distribution of forces at the start of any of the mid-war scenarios and compare it to what you typically see in your own games of AWD ... there's no resemblance. After the couple of turns in Barbarossa the Eastern Front usually has two or three killer stacks on each side stalking one another ... reducing down to one or two as the front moves back towards Germany. IMO a major change to this stereotyped flow of AWD would be a huge breath of fresh air to the game; reintroduce some maneuver that's less 'chess-like' and more 'wargame-like'.

My first 'anti-big stack' notion was be to use logistics restrictions; make it a time consuming proposition to assemble huge stacks of units and the supplies they require to attack. Several ways to do this;

1) eliminate the ability to draw supplies from an adjacent region (my personal favorite)
2) eliminate the tactical movement ability of supplies (I think this is a simple change to moddable files)
3) limit the ability to repair rails; maximum of one damage level can be repaired turn
4) increase the cost to fully repair rails to 10.
5) a more difficult version of (4) would be to keep track of the last side (Axis or Allies) to control a repaired rail in any region in the USSR. Then double the cost to repair that rail to the other side (which of course represents the gauge-changing that both sides had to perform when capturing/recapturing rail links from the other side).
5) selectively reduce rail capacity in regions that only had one or two lines (Siberia, N. Africa, Middle East).

Some mix of measures like these would make it straightforward to supply 10-20 units for an attack from a single region, but very difficult (i.e., probably requiring a full turn's delay) to accumulate supplies (and units) for a 30+ unit attack from a region.

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 6

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/23/2009 4:11:42 PM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

The idea I like the best is supplies must be in the unit's region to be used. But I do think this should be limited to when both supplies and unit are in land regions. Then fleets can still be supplied from shore, for example. Should this apply on both attack and defense?

I also like my idea for some benefit to defending units for other friendly units in an adjacent region.

Related, it would be nice if units consumed more supplies to defend. Maybe not 1 supply/unit, but 1 supply/5 unit. I think the reason this wasn't done is the question of "if you have enough supplies for some but not all, then which units get supplied?". Easiest would be arbitrary, just whichever unit is found first (lower unit ID).

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 7

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/23/2009 7:44:48 PM

Forwarn45

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline

I didn't previously respond to this thread because I was kind of hoping the idea wouldn't get much response. As for giving units penalties for larger stacks - I think it's a fairly huge design decision and would take a long time to properly balance. Plus, it makes the game a good bit more complicated - and can lead to micromanagement of how many forces are at X, Y, and Z.

I dislike the supply change idea less - but I'm still not a fan. Use of supply would have to depend on both the number of attackers and defenders. If I attack with one militia or a fighter against a huge stack, that should use very little supply. Otherwise, you would make gamey attacks just to deplete enemy supplies. Further, I think the supply change will lead to a game that is somewhat less fun. This is in part because of my experience playing others - I pay a lot of attention to ensuring there's supply for defense. It's not my favorite part of the game, but it is necessary. But not everyone pays as much attnetion - and I always feel a little bad (but only a little) when someone hasn't positioned enough supply to allow for the critical defense of a territory. This suggestion will, I expect, lead to more oversights and more tedium in distributing supply.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 8

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/23/2009 9:18:05 PM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

Hi Forwarn,

I'm certainly sympathetic to the fact that folks have different preferences; some get more enjoyment from ease of play and some care more about how closely a game approximates history. Sounds like we're at opposite ends of that spectrum, at least for this game. So I would concede the point that any (still hypothetical) solutions like those discussed above should come in the form of selectable options or scenarios, not hard-wired into the game.

Reasonably, that shouldn't be a problem; AWD already has several supply options (advanced, auto, area), several victory condition options (AV, No AV, WA/USSR surrenders), several scenarios w/varying combat resolution options (Total War, UV, GG). So creating an option or scenario for history junkies that provides greater depth in the combat system wouldn't have to detract from the gaming experience for folks who like pretzels with their beer (how's that for a tortured metaphor?)

.

Speaking as one of the unrepentant history junkies

, I can definitely say that a version of AWD which made me think hard/micromanage the disposition of my forces up and down the East Front and carefully plan the flow of supplies for offensive AND defensive operations would make the game a lot MORE fun ... for me.
But I respect the fact that many others would not enjoy that at all. (Less Filling! Tastes Great! More Pretzels!)

Thanks for raising the excellent points about playability.

Also, your point about "soakoff" attacks to burn defender's supplies is spot on. If defensive supply was altered to require a supply point for every 3, 5, ..., X defenders, then the supply burn should only occur for units that actually defend, i.e., those that shoot or are shot at during the combat.

< Message edited by SGT Rice -- 1/23/2009 9:35:31 PM >

(in reply to Forwarn45)

Post #: 9

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/24/2009 6:42:16 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

One thing I personally wouldn't like is if the game really splintered into a dozen varients with too much flexibility. Personally I think I prefer no more than 2, a simpler and a more complex (training, and the version I want to play

).

I very much appreciate forwarn45's comments which tend to rein in change. I hope I am conservative enough ... usually I only jump if it really resonates with me (being human, I cannot avoid some subjectivity) or it comes up repeatedly (until eventually it does resonate, like the national capability offsets).

I think that the best, easiest and least intrusive proposal here is the supply-from-adjacent. The mechanics would be very intuitive, although the implications would be far reaching. It would require some changed mindset, but only because of what we're used to not because of the nature of the mechanic.

I'll contemplate it, but welcome more opinions. 2 for (MA+SR) and 1 against (F45) certainly does not make a compelling case for change.

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 10

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/25/2009 1:47:28 AM

goodtimes

Posts: 9
Joined: 6/10/2007
Status: offline

I would suggest you come up with something simple, say requiring 1 unit in a friendly adjacent area for every 8 units in a combat region, or a penalty be applied. (would only apply if there was friendly adjacent areas)

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 11

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/26/2009 3:22:05 PM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

I agree that the big stacks are gamey and unpleasant to the eyes, but I don't see a good solution for it. The ones presented so far all have their cons.

I guess that in the end, we'll have to live with it.

(in reply to goodtimes)

Post #: 12

RE: Anti-Big stack - 1/30/2009 9:20:37 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

While I am not in favour of limiting the flow of supplies as IMO this would slow down advances in Russia another possibility how to increase the supply consumption of defending units could be by going by unit TYPE instead by numbers.

Make it one supply for each unit type, e.g. 2 supplies for one Infantry and one tank defending. The same could be applied to all units across the board, so that at maximum it could cost a defender 10 supplies on land (inf, art, arm, aa, fighter, tac. B., H.B, airborne, militia, CAG), similarly 9 supplies out on sea. average cost would probably be around 5-7 on land and less than 5 on sea.

It would be 100% clear how many supplies are needed, there would be no arbitrary "one supplies per 5 units " rule, and a rule how unsupplied units could be treated could look like:

if NO supplies are available, no change to now.
if less than the required number of supplies are available, half effect as above for all units (all suffer some shortage)

(in reply to GKar)

Post #: 13

RE: Anti-Big stack - 2/2/2009 6:50:43 AM

Lucky1

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline

Although this is a bit oblique to the initial post, FOW has been raised a few times. I still think it would neat to implement some SigInt impact in terms of what one sees rather than what is actually there. This has been raised before (what, me get an idee fixe?) and I seem to recall that it was implemented to a certain extent in GG WBS. Even if this were not possible on the worldmap, I still think it might be fun in the screen listing all existing units etc.

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 14

RE: Anti-Big stack - 2/3/2009 6:00:10 PM

Forwarn45

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline

Increasing the defensive supply cost will have a significant effect on the flow of the game. What it basically does is favor the offensive player. Early on, it would help the Germans in Russia by forcing the Russians to spend more supply on defensive battles. This likely means deeper penetration into Russia and more games in which Russia falls. Later on, it will help the Allies by forcing the Axis to spend more of their production on supply. I think this is a pretty big deal.

< Message edited by Forwarn45 -- 2/3/2009 6:19:57 PM >

(in reply to Lucky1)

Post #: 15

RE: Anti-Big stack - 2/6/2009 4:37:50 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

There could be a rule that no more supplies would be defensively spent than different unit types attack, preventing the "waste" of supplies due to one militia attacking. If only one unit type attacks, only one supply would be spent by all defending units. Bigger battles would still induce higher supply consumption as it should be for both sides.

(in reply to Forwarn45)

Post #: 16

RE: Anti-Big stack - 2/7/2009 6:07:32 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

Clearly, any rule which eliminates the BS (Big Stack) would simply have to be a large change to game play with balance implications. It is just unavoidable.

IMO the only truly elegant proposal was disallowing supply from adjacent.

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 2/7/2009 6:08:07 AM >

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 17