JWE
Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi all,
Ground combat model? Hmmmm. I would look at four things; 1) LCU (unit) composition, 2) unit posture, 3) unit orientation, and 4) result calculation algorithm; they generally interrelate. Here are some brief takes on these.
1) I like, very much, the idea of assembling a unit from various component parts; you could have, or have not, high-angle artillery, AT groups, AA groups, or other support weapons; or have, or have not, force multiplier units, such as signals, transport or the like. Should be identified as “front line” (FEBA units with integral weap systems, i.e., inf squads & 81mm morts), “oriented support” (AT weaps, etc ..), “support” (arty), and “multipliers” (these reduce the time necessary to change posture and orientation)
2) Posture can be menu selectable and would be different whether the unit has been in position for a while, or is moving. Posture is like; for example, advance (to contact or not), recon (in force or not), fixing attack, deliberate attack, all out assault; delaying defense, deliberate defense, and death-or-glory (not meant to be complete).
3) Orientation (also menu selectable) depends on the (Joe, Mandrake, Tallyho!) take on hexes (above); a unit will orient straight ahead (towards/across one hex side) when moving/attacking, but will spread over a wider area (pointing towards 2 or 3 adjacent hex sides) when defending, thus giving an attacker a “local” superiority. Defending FEBA units can be divided by the algorithm so as to have a “front” on two or three hex sides, depending on the “orientation” selected. Support units (artillery, for best example) may encompass the orientation edges; artillery (depending on national characteristics, naturally) can fully concentrate behind the one unit portion “orientated” to defend against the attack vector (kinda like all of the div arty shooting in support of the one regt making the assault, or the one regt facing the enemy assault). Oriented support is just like FEBA; it is “oriented” by the player and therefore dispersed by the algorithm. Multipliers reduce the time necessary to change orientation (i.e., move the friggin reserve Bn to where it’s needed).
4) This one is tough. Whether UGO/IGO or WEGO, the algorithm should apply to the # of bodies attacking, exposure of attackers & defenders, and unit firepower. # of bodies and firepower depends on “orientation” factors. Exposure depends on a unit’s “posture”; defense from emplacements exposes little; all-out assault has maximum exposure. Both sides’ relative amounts of firepower develops an ‘interim combat result’, such as ‘pinning’, ‘disrupting’, etc .. with consequent casualties. Depending on ‘posture’, an attack may well continue even though the attacker is ‘disrupted’. Deliberate attacks may continue until the requisite # of dead is reached; then the action is broken off; counterattack or retreat for reorganization is the next option. Banzai assaults may continue until all are dead. Following the ‘interim result’ a unit (depending on ‘posture’) can proceed with ‘close engagement’. This typically results in either the attacker, or the defending unit (again dependant on ‘orientation’), being “defeated” (perhaps even annihilated). The remainder (the non-engaged, or non-oriented units) likely beat feet.
There are existing models of % casualties related to combat effectiveness. Naturally, an “interim combat” could crush an “exposed” attacking force by fire alone.
Well, that’s the very short of it.
JWE
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: WitP II Ground Combat Model Discussion - 
) Hexside sectors work well for hexside features (like bridges and minefields and fortifications etc etc) but I am not sure players will accept the idea of fighting for triangles. 
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