Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Contested hex rule

 
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] >> WarPlan >> Contested hex rule Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Contested hex rule - 2/14/2021 12:38:06 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline 		When an enemy unit is destroyed or forced to retreat, the hex in which the battle took place becomes 1MP to move into, regardless of ZOC from nearby enemy units.

In most turn based games, the convention is that if there has been combat in a hex, then the cost for units to move into that hex after the battle is increased to simulate the time and chaos that the preceding battle caused.

Yet in Warplan what happens is the reverse. Hexes where battles have occurred become high speed zones that you can propel your forces through with no regard for enemy ZOC or the fact there has been a battle. This means it is three times as costly (3MP) to move into contact with an enemy unit as it is to move into a hex where there has been a battle (1MP), even if this move is covered by enemy ZOC.

I can't see any justification for this in terms of mirroring reality, so is this rule in place for balance, or is it an unwanted artefact that needs to be addressed?
Post #: 1
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/14/2021 1:13:21 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline 		In most (not all) strategy level turn based game I have played, attackers move into the hex with with no movement points. I think it is good as it is. In reality, the battle occurred in the hex itself, and effectiveness lost represents the chaos.

< Message edited by MorningDew -- 2/14/2021 1:49:50 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 2
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/14/2021 1:41:57 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MorningDew

In most (not all) strategy level turn based game I have played, defenders move into the hex with with no movement points. I think it is good as it is. In reality, the battle occurred in the hex itself, and effectiveness lost represents the chaos.


When you say defenders, I assume you mean attackers?

And the point is that all the attacking side's units that move into a hex where a battle has taken place can do at 1MP, ignoring enemy ZOC, thus accelerating themselves through the breach. Hexes that experience huge, often prolonged battles are 3x quicker to move through than adjacent hexes where no battle has occurred (assuming defending units are nearby).

Clearly on any level of reality this is absurd. So what is the game balance argument for this rule, because that can be the only justification?

(in reply to MorningDew)
Post #: 3
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/14/2021 1:44:18 PM   
Nirosi

 

Posts: 1776
Joined: 9/17/2017
Status: offline 		I have also noted the strange effect this rule can have. For example it could be better in some cases to leave an hex empty than to have a very weak unit in it in ZOC. With a weak unit, it could take only 2 MP to get into the hex, 1 to attack and 1 to move into while for an empty hex it would actually take more with 3 MP.

However...

I believe that making it harder to advance into such an hex will have overall bad effects on the strategic level by making breakthrough way to hard to make, and will not allow for realistic/historical/fun results to happens. Right now, even if the rule seems strange, I believe the overall consequence (Battle of France, Barbarossa etc.) are relatively balanced.

(in reply to MorningDew)
Post #: 4
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/14/2021 1:52:33 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline 		Yes, I meant attackers (edited). I find the combination of the combat results table, where 2-1 and 3-1 are not enough, along with the current Ops point movement requirements feels balanced and leads to accurate results for a strategic level game. At this level, there are always abstractions.

My opinion is no change is needed, but I am not the game designer, just a player who really enjoys the game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nirosi)
Post #: 5
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/14/2021 4:09:52 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline 		Actually it is more deep than you think.

1st off just moving into a hex yes costs 3 opts.... from a single unit.

But attacking a hex and forcing a retreat costs at minimum 2 opts.... 1 from every unit attacking, 1 from the moving unit.

So it's pretty balanced.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to MorningDew)
Post #: 6
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/14/2021 6:01:28 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Actually it is more deep than you think.

1st off just moving into a hex yes costs 3 opts.... from a single unit.

But attacking a hex and forcing a retreat costs at minimum 2 opts.... 1 from every unit attacking, 1 from the moving unit.

So it's pretty balanced.

quote:

forcing


Thanks Alvaro.

Ok, so the example above is fine. If the rule that a battle hex was 1MP for one of the attacking units to move into to occupy then great, I'm in. Good rule.

But the problem is that the battle hex isn't just reduced to 1MP for the attacking unit, it's reduced for every single other unit.

So attacking players effectively can slingshot their units through attacked hexes, ignoring all ZOC from other defending units.



(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 7
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/14/2021 10:59:01 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline 		That is right. It's part of the appeal of the game so many like.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 8
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/15/2021 1:15:09 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

That is right. It's part of the appeal of the game so many like.


I guess if everybody likes it then why change it?!

But am I alone here - nobody else think this rule is odd and deserves debate?

Why should a battle negate all other units' ZOC in a hex? Why should it be 300% quicker to move through a battle hex than a non-battle hex?

I think what it calls into question is the +2MP rule for moving into enemy ZOC itself. I have always felt this is excessive.

For me, moving into enemy ZOC should be +1MP, and should apply to all situations, whether a hex has experienced a battle or not. That's my 2 cents.


(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 9
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/15/2021 1:58:23 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline 		I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I do not find it odd. I think the mechanism works well to recreate, at this scale, the concept of blitzkrieg warfare.

_____________________________


(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 10
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/15/2021 2:22:58 PM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
quote:

Why should a battle negate all other units' ZOC in a hex? Why should it be 300% quicker to move through a battle hex than a non-battle hex?


I understand what you are saying but eliminating this rule would make it even more difficult than it is to go through a ´´wall´´, and it is already very difficult (:

Another point of view could be that after winning that hexagon it is clean of enemies so the advance can be faster.

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 11
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/15/2021 2:54:24 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline 		There are strategies to combat this. Like placing a gap in the line between a wall and the next line or simply defending in depth. Or you can block group units funneling retreats to form a defends behind. It is part of the strategy.

What fun is it to grind away at Russian troops. Who here doesn't like encircling 6 Russian armies.

The breakthrough represents combined arms tactics blowing a hole in a line and pouring through like they did in France and Russia.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 12
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/15/2021 6:28:18 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 7380
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline 		And don't forget it is a two weeks' turn game.

_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 13
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/17/2021 3:41:45 AM   
Kyrian

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 12/31/2020
Status: offline 		Yes the rules are great as is. It is essential to allow for the blitzkrieg and units encirclement.

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 14
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/17/2021 11:30:08 AM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kyrian

Yes the rules are great as is. It is essential to allow for the blitzkrieg and units encirclement.


I agree it's essential that the game allows encirclement etc.

I just wonder whether this strange slingshot rule exists because the current +2 MP from enemy ZOC is too high.

Reduce the enemy ZOC penalty to +1, and perhaps this rule is no longer necessary?

(in reply to Kyrian)
Post #: 15
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/17/2021 11:40:32 AM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

And don't forget it is a two weeks' turn game.

quote:

ld be that after winning that hexagon it is clean of enemies so the advanc


This is exactly why the rule is strange.

In most serious games of this type, contested hexes result in movement penalties to simulate the time taken in the battles, and the chaos caused. ie, if you have to attack a hex twice in a turn, maybe that takes the equivalent of 2 days of battling. Therefore any further units moving through the battle hex must pay a penalty of MPs to recognise they would have had to have waited for the battle to end before moving through the hex.

You can refer to any number of other games to witness this concept. I would say it is pretty much accepted as a default concept in any game that seeks to represent reality. See WITE for one of many examples.

In this game, the opposite happens to a hex where a battle is fought - it becomes easier and quicker to move follow on forces through, rather than harder/slower. The opposite of reality.

So we have a rule that is clearly in place not for simulation purposes, but for game balance purposes.

My point now is why is this particular balance rule necessary? Presumably it's in place because exploitation of attacks would be too difficult without it. My next question is: why is exploitation too difficult in this game without this strange slingshot rule?

Could the answer be that moving into/through enemy ZOC has a penalty of +2MPs, and that perhaps this is too high?

Why is ZOC penalty +2 and not +1 for example?

Just asking...

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 16
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/17/2021 1:36:54 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline 		I tried 2 didn't work. I tried a lot of mixes.

And usually it takes more than one combat to dislodge a unit. On average 2.5 opts, then you can move in for 1 for a total of 3.5.

In fact it doesn't simulate breakthroughs enough. The Germans got to Minsk in what 7 days? You can't reach that on the map in one move in the 1941 scenario I believe. Or maybe you barely can.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 17
RE: Contested hex rule - 2/17/2021 4:43:16 PM   
stjeand


Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline 		I disagree.

Most games when you attack you pay 0 to move into the hex you attacked.

Then if you had not moved you still have full movement. Isn't that out of place?
But that is most board games I have played. Do not remember any that are different.

Another way to look at it is...does ZOC exist in a hex that has had a battle?
One might say no.
The defender has been routed, driven from the hex.
All units adjacent would be flooded with retreating troops and unable to respond to enemy units entering the hex.

Just another possibility

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Contested hex rule Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734