Combat System Discussion

[Darman]

My obvious question to the query is:
How would this be represented in the sim report? Remember we are in Excel spreadsheet world, where we can't define objects with private data-types or structs.

We come up with a cost for each type of supporting unit (chemical, anti-air, etc), and then you just plug them into the spreadsheet the same way we do every other army unit.  In the "notes" column just write that the unit is attached to such and such army corps. 

[Darman]

I would like to note that a modification to the Army rules is necessary to differentiate between cavalry/specialist or infantry.  I believe that specialist units should have approximately 25% less combat power versus infantry (without terrain bonuses being factored in), and that cavalry should have between 50-75% less combat power.  However, light and specialist infantry have movement advantages versus infantry (i.e. light infantry get a 25% loss of mobility in the mountains versus 50% for regular infantry and 0% for mountain intantry, same applies for any specialist unit in their native environment).  Cavalry should have between 40-50% better mobility than infantry, but approximately half the combat power. 

[Walter]

I believe that specialist units should have approximately 25% less combat power versus infantry (without terrain bonuses being factored in), and that cavalry should have between 50-75% less combat power.

Well, that depends on how you look at it. To me, 50000 men on horses and with rifles should have the same combat power as 50000 men on foot and with rifles (whether they are specialists or regular infantry). This was being reflected with cavalry having the same combat value as infantry but with a lower artillery value due to the need of lighter guns that need to be able to keep up with the cavalry. Perhaps cavalry should have a bit more due to the added power option of the (suicidal) cavalry charge.

You would have to lower the number of men in a cavalry corps to actually justify lowering the combat power of the unit. I think that this would also be true for a specialist unit.

I would think that if you stick to the 50,000 men per corps, with KISS calculations an infantry corps would be 2 divisions while cavalry/specialists would be 4. This would give you 25,000 men in an infantry division and 12,500 men in a specialist/cavalry division.

[Logi]

I disagree with the assertion that specialist units like cavalry have half the combat power. Like Walter points out, 50,000 men on horseback with rifles have the same combat power as the same number on foot.

The key difference is not one of "combat strength" but of cost. Horses are just plain expensive and a mounted division is going to be far more costly than a normal one. That leads to the general trend of having a smaller division which then means less combat strength. The same an be said for other specialist divisions. Fundamentally the idea they have to be weaker is flawed, in reality they are simply more expensive to train and supply/build. Hence I agree with Walter's KISS simplification.

[Darman]

Well, that depends on how you look at it. To me, 50000 men on horses and with rifles should have the same combat power as 50000 men on foot and with rifles (whether they are specialists or regular infantry). This was being reflected with cavalry having the same combat value as infantry but with a lower artillery value due to the need of lighter guns that need to be able to keep up with the cavalry. Perhaps cavalry should have a bit more due to the added power option of the (suicidal) cavalry charge.

My view of the corps size is that an infantry corps has approximately 50,000 men.  A cavalry corps cost the same as a 50,000 man infantry corps but the number of personnel is much lower because of the added upfront and recurring costs associated with horses.  My guess would be the actual personnel levels would be closer to 15,000 men, with the rest of the money going to horses and specialized equipment that the infantry don't need.  Every field gun and howitzer is lighter, there are fewer of them, but they have twice as many horses to facilitate their mobility.  It is on that basis that I'd like to modify the combat value (I'd like to do away with artillery value). 

You would have to lower the number of men in a cavalry corps to actually justify lowering the combat power of the unit.

I believe I addressed this above, the 50,000 cavalrymen is a literal interpretation that every corps has 50,000 men, whereas I believe the intention was to fix the price of each corps at the equivalent cost of a 50,000 man infantry corps with its attached artillery, engineers, logistics, HQ, etc. 

I think that this would also be true for a specialist unit.

Just as a cavalry corps has a higher cost per man, so too will specialist corps.  For a mountain corps, the cost of mountain howitzers and pack mules to carry them both limits their firepower and also adds to the cost.  Specialized climbing equipment would also add a cost, however slight.  In an open-field engagement with a regular infantry corps a mountain infantry corps' supporting mountain guns would be outranged and overpowered by the heaver field guns of the infantry corps, thus providing the infantry corps with an advantage.  However, in the mountains, the heavier and unwieldy field guns of the infantry corps would be at a disadvantage against the lighter and more mobile mountain guns. 
To summarize, a mountain corps, or any other specialist corps, would have special equipment that increases the cost per man and will also have lighter guns that better allow them to provide support under whatever conditions their specialty requires.  Thus, rather than a literal 50,000 man mountain/jungle/desert/etc corps, they will more likely have 35,-40,000 men, with the cost of the remaining 10,-15,000 men that are missing going to extra pack mules, camels, specialized equipment and training required that gives them their advantages in their special terrain. 

[Walter]

I'd like to do away with artillery value

Considering that we have stuff like railway artillery and siege artillery, I would actually keep it separate from the combat value of the man with the rifle, especially if you have an artillery duel in which the regular soldier is not involved and his combat value adds nothing to the fight.

the cost of mountain howitzers and pack mules to carry them both limits their firepower and also adds to the cost.

Here we go with the gun costs again...

One mountain howitzer and pack mules to carry it is a lot cheaper than one regular fieldgun and the horses needed to pull that. You can't really use that as an argument to increase the cost of a unit.

Thus, rather than a literal 50,000 man mountain/jungle/desert/etc corps, they will more likely have 35,-40,000 men, with the cost of the remaining 10,-15,000 men that are missing going to extra pack mules, camels, specialized equipment and training required that gives them their advantages in their special terrain.

A bit earlier you mentioned "personnel levels would be closer to 15,000 men" with cavalry. What of something in between for the cavalry/specialist unit? For simplicity I would say half the infantry corps number of men (that way you have with KISS 25,000 men + 25,000 horses = 50,000 :) ). Or is that too simple?

[Darman]

I'm going to take these a little out of order...

A bit earlier you mentioned "personnel levels would be closer to 15,000 men" with cavalry. What of something in between for the cavalry/specialist unit? For simplicity I would say half the infantry corps number of men (that way you have with KISS 25,000 men + 25,000 horses = 50,000 :) ). Or is that too simple?

I believe that this echoes my recommendation to halve the combat power of a cavalry corps, and thus sees no opposition from me. 
For the specialist infantry though, I believe that they have slightly fewer men, and less powerful guns, than a regular infantry formation, although more than a cavalry formation.  However, the type of weapons and equipment they possess gives them an advantage in their native terrain (mountains, jungles, deserts, whatever), that would give them a combat advantage against a regular infantry formation. 
So, to provide hard numbers as an example of how I'd like it to work: (X/Y, X=combat, Y=movement as expressed by provinces)
Infantry (Core unit): 1/1
Cavalry: 0.5/2
Specialist: 0.75/1

In a province dominated by plains/open fields, the Infantry formation is more powerful than the Specialist formation.  However, in a province dominated by mountains, the Mountain Specialist formation stays the same, while the Infantry formation loses 1/2 its mobility and 1/4 of its combat rating, placing them on level playing ground. 

I'd like to do away with artillery value

Considering that we have stuff like railway artillery and siege artillery, I would actually keep it separate from the combat value of the man with the rifle, especially if you have an artillery duel in which the regular soldier is not involved and his combat value adds nothing to the fight.

Whether a battle is an artillery duel or not is up to the combatants involved to script.  According to the system we'd like to use to very roughly sim wars at the strategic level, if opposing troops enter the same province then they get into a fight and whatever mod is in charge will say who wins/loses and how many troops each side wins/loses.  Railway artillery, siege artillery, and fortresses can all be used as modifiers to influence the combat power of the units involved. 

the cost of mountain howitzers and pack mules to carry them both limits their firepower and also adds to the cost.

Here we go with the gun costs again...

One mountain howitzer and pack mules to carry it is a lot cheaper than one regular fieldgun and the horses needed to pull that. You can't really use that as an argument to increase the cost of a unit.[/quote]
If you don't want that example then let me use logistics... what is cheaper, enough mules to carry enough supplies for an army corps for a day or enough horses and wagons?  And also keep in mind, its not just pack howitzers for mules.  Its climbing equipment, skiing equipment, bridging equipment, boating equipment, camels will cost a lot more than donkeys, and for jungle units you can't use pack animals at all you have to use porters.  Plus the extra training and incentives you have to provide to get men to a good level at operating in their chosen environments. 

[Walter]

If you don't want that example

I think I said "can't", not "want". Adding to it, with cavalry, you mentioned "Every field gun and howitzer is lighter, there are fewer of them". I would think that that is true for the mountain corps as well so even if one mountain howitzer+pack mules costs exactly the same as one regular fieldgun+horses, the fact that you have less guns in the mountain corps means that artillery cost for the mountain corps is going to be less than that of the infantry corps.

let me use logistics... what is cheaper, enough mules to carry enough supplies for an army corps for a day or enough horses and wagons?

While I just quickly looked at current prices, in general one horse is more expensive than one mule (especially if it is a bit more quality horse).

If we are to assume that the army corps is an infantry corps, you obviously need quite a few more mules than horses + wagons for the same amount of supplies. But with the mule being a cheaper animal, does that translate into a total cost for mules that is higher than the total cost for horses + the total cost for wagons? Maybe, but I would need to have figures to be certain about that.

Now to look at different types of Corps. Considering that your mountain corps consists of less men than the infantry corps, you'll need less mules for that than when you need mules for the infantry corps because you need less supplies for the mountain troop so I would not be surprised if the costs for all the mules needed for a mountain corps would turn out to be roughly the same as the cost of all the horses+wagons needed for a normal infantry corps.

And also keep in mind, its not just pack howitzers for mules.  Its climbing equipment, skiing equipment, bridging equipment, boating equipment, camels will cost a lot more than donkeys, and for jungle units you can't use pack animals at all you have to use porters. Plus the extra training and incentives you have to provide to get men to a good level at operating in their chosen environments.

"Specialized climbing equipment" is what you mentioned right after the bit I quoted so any additional cost from specialized equipment is separate from the supposed extra cost from guns you mentioned and is was this supposed extra cost that I reacted to. I think most of those things you mentioned can be used to justify "extra cost" (*). It's just that the guns don't fit in there.


(*) especially specialized training.It is going to cost money to train the men and it is going to cost time to train the men. Since time = money, that would mean that the training would be 2x money :)

[Darman]

let me use logistics... what is cheaper, enough mules to carry enough supplies for an army corps for a day or enough horses and wagons?

While I just quickly looked at current prices, in general one horse is more expensive than one mule (especially if it is a bit more quality horse).

Prices from 1899 in the United States.  Draft horses purchased by the British Army were $110-125 a head.  Mules were $200 a head.  Mountain batteries, although lighter guns, require the same or higher numbers of pack animals as a similar-sized (although far more powerful) field or horse artillery battery.  Horse artillery batteries require higher numbers of horses, both light draught and riding horses than the equivalent field artillery battery. 
Additionally, a US Army standard wagon from the 1880s carried 3,000lbs and was pulled by 4 draft animals.  A similar cargo weight carried by pack mules would require approximately 20 mules.  Not to mention that the longer the corps is expected to carry its own supplies, the more fodder those 16 extra mules will eat up, decreasing their capacity for carrying useful supplies for anyone else, thus requiring significantly more pack animals to make up the difference than an equivalent increase in wagons would require. 


Now, we can continue to argue over minor details down to the precise composition of each platoon, section, and ammunition column or you can either agree or disagree with my general premise that if the units are of equal cost (as explicitly stated in the rules, there are no cost differences between the units), an infantry corps is the most powerful, followed by a specialist infantry corps, and lastly comes the cavalry corps. 

[snip]

Now, we can continue to argue over minor details down to the precise composition of each platoon, section, and ammunition column or you can either agree or disagree with my general premise that if the units are of equal cost (as explicitly stated in the rules, there are no cost differences between the units), an infantry corps is the most powerful, followed by a specialist infantry corps, and lastly comes the cavalry corps.

[Logi]

I think Walter and my disagreement would reside in the desire in for the Infantry-Specialist-Cavalary manpower to be the same, rather than different as you suggest.

I think varying the amount of manpower in each unit to keep costs the same is not wise. It makes manpower calculations and simming complex. As much as possible we should try to keep the inputs to the combat simulation the same. Hence I, myself, am more in favor of more costly specialist and cavalry units, not smaller units.

We are not obliged to have equal cost army units.

[Walter]

Prices from 1899 in the United States.  Draft horses purchased by the British Army were $110-125 a head.  Mules were $200 a head.

Okay, that is good to know. Times change and so do the prices. Though I would guess that it would make sense that the British prefer to use their expensive quality horses for the races and the cheap rejects end up in the army or on the fields.  :)

I think Walter and my disagreement would reside in the desire in for the Infantry-Specialist-Cavalary manpower to be the same, rather than different as you suggest.

To me it does not matter that much if those numbers are the same or not. Actually, looking at the TOEs in my WW1 databook, Cavalry divisions are up to 9500 men strong while the infantry goes up to something like 30,000 so it would actually make sense to me if the Cavalry Corps were to be smaller than the Infantry Corps. There is also a bit on an Italian moutain brigade, but no numbers are given there.

Still, it should be kept simple so that would mean 25,000 for Specialists and Cavalry and 50,000 for Infantry. That would make calculations a lot easier than going for some other value though you would have to keep an eye on what type your unit is.

[Darman]

It makes manpower calculations and simming complex.

I have always assumed in the past when calculating the manpower of my army that every corps is 50,000 strong, and to be honest until this iteration of the sim I'd never given it much thought.  But when I proposed the table for determining combat it made me start pondering where the combat values are coming from, and the advantages derived from each type of unit.  As the basic unit an infantry corps cost is fine.  Cavalry corps ought to get a movement bonus, and its really not fair or accurate to make a cavalry unit with the same combat power as an infantry unit cost exactly the same.  So to simplify bookkeeping and army creation I figured that just assuming we keep the costs for corps the same regardless of type, and for simming purposes we make cavalry and specialists less powerful in a standard format (i.e. standard terrain: plains, fields, etc).  The system that I've proposed wouldn't be too complicated to sim; every province has a dominant terrain type, add modifiers for fortresses, siege artillery, etc (modifiers would be plus/minus or rarely multiplication/division of base combat points).  It is literally a case of summing up the points and coming out with a ratio.  Then you roll dice.  And thus get your strategic results.  All the necessary numbers would be agreed upon in advance of the game starting (including modifiers). 

Prices from 1899 in the United States.  Draft horses purchased by the British Army were $110-125 a head.  Mules were $200 a head.

Okay, that is good to know. Times change and so do the prices. Though I would guess that it would make sense that the British prefer to use their expensive quality horses for the races and the cheap rejects end up in the army or on the fields.  :)

Cavalry horses were about 45 pounds sterling in Britain, 16 pounds in Australia, 25 pounds 10 shillings in the USA, and 28 pounds in Canada.  I couldn't figure out a good way to convert that to dollars in 1899. 

I think Walter and my disagreement would reside in the desire in for the Infantry-Specialist-Cavalary manpower to be the same, rather than different as you suggest.

To me it does not matter that much if those numbers are the same or not. Actually, looking at the TOEs in my WW1 databook, Cavalry divisions are up to 9500 men strong while the infantry goes up to something like 30,000 so it would actually make sense to me if the Cavalry Corps were to be smaller than the Infantry Corps. There is also a bit on an Italian moutain brigade, but no numbers are given there.

Still, it should be kept simple so that would mean 25,000 for Specialists and Cavalry and 50,000 for Infantry. That would make calculations a lot easier than going for some other value though you would have to keep an eye on what type your unit is.

I can definitely agree to a 25,000 man cavalry/specialist corps, and 50,000 for infantry, although my preference is that they cost the same.  I ask if you'd prefer cavalry and specialists to be 1/2 the strength of infantry, or if you want specialists to be 3/4 the strength of an infantry unit (assuming they still cost the same). 

By the way, I'd love to know which WW1 databook you have, I've been keeping my eyes out for one but don't seem to be finding any. 

[Walter]

It's the one I gave the link of in one of the other threads...

http://www.amazon.com/The-World-War-Databook-Combatants/dp/1854107666

[Darman]

It's the one I gave the link of in one of the other threads...

http://www.amazon.com/The-World-War-Databook-Combatants/dp/1854107666

Oh sorry, must not have noticed it.  Thanks though!