Combat System Discussion

[Logi]

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). 

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not advocating same-price same-size army formulations, clearly that would be fantasy. What I am instead suggesting is that same-size, different-price is less complicated than different-size, same-price, which seems to be the mixture you are advocating. At no point do I advocate for same-capability, which seems to be what you are misunderstanding my position to be.

The concept of strength-price is relevant outside of the combat sim, since it doesn't actually tie to heavily into the combat sim itself. Different prices for an item is not a big deal, indeed we do it extensively throughout our ruleset N3 and all the subsequent attempts to replace it. Clearly bookkeeping in this sense and fashion has never really been an issue. Rather the issue arises from off-the-books calculations.

For example, the internal calculation by a player of the relative powers of differing nations, including their own, is made more complicated by different unit sizes. If nation A has 20 corp, and I want to know the sustained firepower they can bring to bear then all the differences in size become smoke and mirrors, confusing attempts to answer the very simple question. If unit sizes are the same, the answer is quite simple. Another example would be if I wanted to determine a force's likelihood of holding in a sector quickly before any real attempt to simulate the situation. From the get-go and for people inexperienced with the future combat system, it's going to make the calculus a lot simpler to have same-size units. And this reflects the generality that different size units make mental heuristics more complicated for people, especially for those of us that aren't frequently thinking about combat system they are using.

Another point is that the whole different strength approach is self-defeating. If we decide that the fundamental unit of the cavalry/specialist Corp is 25,000 men strong, we have done nothing but take a Division and re-brand it. There is nothing to prevent someone from attaching two of these Corps to form a standard unit Corp. In addition it makes the grounds shaky. If specialist forces can have only 25,000 men to play with, then why can't we play with 25,000 men Infantry Divisions instead of Corps? The different sizes in units promotes the reduction in fundamental unit size of all units to the lowest common denominator, something that makes the different unit sizes redundant. If I have access to Division sized units in planning, I'm not going to restrict myself to only moving around Corps... it's clumsy and limits strategic flexibility. Whilst difference in sizes occurred despite similar titles historically, they were not bound in the same way we are bound with regard to war simulation. Hence they could have called it whatever they wanted, without operating only as dictated by it's official title. As far as I can tell, that's not going to be the case in our combat system. And besides the historical tradition, there's little real reason to have different unit sizes if the combat system itself relies only on numerical projections of capabilities, not the actual manpower themselves. After all, if it doesn't really matter to the combat simmer if the Cavalry has 25000 or 50000 men given it's power within the combat system remains the same, then there's really little reason for the manpower to differ.

At the same time as all of these disagreements, I do think the more standardized 25,000 & 50,000 as suggested is a better distribution, if there indeed to be a distribution, than the previously mentioned three different "combat powers" (which is a more subtle way of saying manpower strength, given the source of combat power).

[Walter]

Another point is that the whole different strength approach is self-defeating. If we decide that the fundamental unit of the cavalry/specialist Corp is 25,000 men strong, we have done nothing but take a Division and re-brand it.

Well, when I look in my WW1 data book, it almost looks like that the average cavalry division is the size of an average infantry brigade (manpower-wise).

Numbers from the book, cavalry division size vs infantry division size:
AH: 7169/21765
Belgium ?/31196
Bulgaria: ~2500/~27000
France: ~4500/15000
Germany: 5238/~13000
Greece: ~2000/~15000
Italy: 4200/14200
Rumania: 5280/~20000
Russia: 4851/21211
Serbia: 3860/19430
UK: 9629/16035
US: ?/28105

With those numbers, the rough average would give you 4500 men in a cavalry division and 20000 men in an infantry division or 17500 if you ignore Belgium and US which have no cavalry numbers. If you assume that there are 3 divisions in a corps, you would have 13500 men in a cavalry corps and 60000/52500 men in an infantry corps.



Infantry vs Cavalry/Specialist Cost: I could see that cavalry/specialist is more expensive $-wise, but I'm not sure that it would be more expensive BP-wise, especially when you 'remove' a bunch of field guns and are 'adding' a whole bunch of horses, mules, camels, or porters which would all have a BP value of 0.

[Logi]

Ignoring my concerns for the moment...

I agree with Walter regarding the cost/BP.  Training and horses don't require BP but $ and they also have lighter gear.
How are the numbers looking currently for the Infantry-Specialist/Cavalry, Darman?

[Darman]

How's this as a suggestion:
Primitive Infantry movement 1, combat 2, $4, 0.5BP
Primitive Cavalry movement 2, combat 1, $6, 0.25BP
Primitive Specialist movement 1 (with no penalties in their specialty area), combat 1.5, $6, 0.25BP

To be honest I have no problems making costs different, I simply prefer to keep costs simple, so that we do not have so many different values.  The above scenario gives you two different values.  If you prefer 3 values then there is also this option:
Primitive Infantry movement 1, combat 2, $4, 0.5BP
Primitive Cavalry movement 2, combat 1, $6, 0.25BP
Primitive Specialist movement 1 (no penalties), combat 1.5, $5, 0.38BP

To explain my premise for the first 2-price option, I figure that the amount of guns and special equipment are the same in the cavalry/specialist formations.  The difference in combat power reflects the fact that the additional cash ($) spent compared to the infantry division is going to be spent on horses and mobility in the cavalry division, and while the specialist division has some cash spent on terrain-specific mobility platforms, it can spend more of that on troops to fight (thus increasing its combat power over that of the cavalry division). 

For the 3-price option, I just wanted to give it to you.  The additional combat power granted to the specialist corps is per its increase in BP as well as the same rationalization given above.  My personal preference is the 2-price option because its simpler and in my opinion the reasoning behind it makes sense.  And no, I'm not willing to debate down to dollar/pound amounts it may or may not make sense, I'm only willing to debate the overall simplicity-versus-complexity of the 2-price or 3-price options without getting into the nitty-gritty details of how much such and such cost back in 1900 (although I will admit that perusing shipping information from the Boer War was quite entertaining). 

If you REALLY want to make cavalry/specialist formations absolutely equal combat power wise, then for my 3-price option substitute combat power 1 for combat power 1.5, and substitute cost $4 for cost $5, and substitute 0.25BP for 0.38BP. 

Please, I'd like you to choose from one of these options, if you aren't happy with any of them then tell me.  And "I dont like it" isn't a valid argument.  I want to know WHY.  I'm not going to make everyone happy.  If we can't agree on a new system then we can always return to the original N3 system. 

[Darman]

How do people like the idea of treating Cavalry as a Specialist Corps?  Meaning that Specialist units are considered to be 25,000 men with half the manpower and combat power of an Infantry Corps, but the same mobility.  (conversely the Infantry Corps' mobility could be penalized when entering hostile environments such as Mountains.)
Special Powers:
Cavalry - Hills/Plains terrain - 2x mobility advantage (1.25x combat?)
Mountain - Mountain terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.25x combat?)
Desert - Desert/Arid terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.25x combat?)
Jungle - Jungle/Tropical terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.25x combat?)
Marine - Assaulting into a coastal province - no mobility advantage, but they either get 1.5x combat OR Infantry combat is halved performing the same assault. 

Thoughts?

[Logi]

For the record: I am in favor of the 2 different value rather than 3 different values.
I prefer Cavalry as a type of Specialist Corp with advantage in plains/hills, as you wrote down.

I would prefer to keep all the modifiers in Specialist Corps and leave Infantry as the base unit.
Hence, Infantry gets no movement penalties or combat penalties. Instead Specialist forces have movement bonuses and combat bonuses.

I think Cavalry should also have movement bonus (but no combat bonus) over desert/arid.
The rest of the values for Cavalry and the other specialist types seems fine. It's hard to tell without experience using it in a simulation.

[snip]

I think Cavalry should also have movement bonus (but no combat bonus) over desert/arid.

I agree with all you said but this. I think that partially defeats the Desert specialty. IMO, the logistical tail of a CAV corp as constructed for a non-arid climate would not be sufficient to permit much added mobility over a stereotypical INF corp in a arid one. Also horses are not the ideal animal for such uses, that falls to camels, which is something that would not work in the vast majority of our armies without significant back story (Ottomans being the one exception). For both those and the sake of simplicity (one unit type per climate), I disagree with that proposal.

[Darman]

Cleaned up a little bit, and modified slightly. 
Special Powers:
Cavalry - Hills/Plains, terrain - 2x mobility advantage (1.5x combat)
Mountain - Mountain terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.5x combat)
Desert - Desert/Arid terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.5x combat)
Jungle - Jungle/Tropical terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.5x combat)
Marine - Assaulting into a coastal province via the sea, or crossing major rivers - no mobility advantage, but they get 2x combat

[Walter]

Also horses are not the ideal animal for such uses, that falls to camels, which is something that would not work in the vast majority of our armies without significant back story

I think that with desert units the vast majority of nations would have to use horses due to the lack of access to camels. As for 'significant back story'... I'm sure that through trade one can get their hands on camels and it is not neccessary to deal with the Ottomans (though that might make sense as that will strengthen the Ottoman's position).

I would think that a desert camel unit has an advantage over a desert horse unit.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I believe I can comment on this :)

On Marines, I would say they simply get a lesser penalty, not a bonus. The "bonus" is that they get to concentrate mass and firepower at a point of engagement of their choosing.

As for desert cavalry, I think camels would have an advantage in the big sandy deserts - Sahara, Gobi, etc.  But in the arid hardpan, the superior speed of the horse would yield a tactical advantage.

Nice to see the War Dept Handbook's pages. Somewhere in the dim past I posted that info, but darned if I know where, so I couldn't point to it.

As for Military formations.
I kinda liked where N6 was going. I've always felt the 50,000 person corps, divisible to 2 x 25,000 man divisions was clunky and the divisions oversized.

The historic Corp was a formation capable of independent actions - a mini army capable of marching by parallel roads and taking cooperative actions.  Generally, Divisions lacked that tail. The HQ, Commo, Medical, QM, Corps Art, any attached cavalry, etc all took up a substantive amount of manpower.

So...if the N6 technique is too detailed (shame, as I had doodled out AH formations :) )my thoughts wander to the Corps has a 2000 person "HQ", with 4 x 12,000 person Divisions (including temporarily attached support units). Brigades would be 6,000, Regiments 3,000.   A bit more flexibility & divisibility, allowing better dispersion on borders. 

[Logi]

Nice to see the War Dept Handbook's pages. Somewhere in the dim past I posted that info, but darned if I know where, so I couldn't point to it.

You mentioned it here, but the link is dead. As such I went directly to the source.

As for Military formations.
I kinda liked where N6 was going. I've always felt the 50,000 person corps, divisible to 2 x 25,000 man divisions was clunky and the divisions oversized.

The historic Corp was a formation capable of independent actions - a mini army capable of marching by parallel roads and taking cooperative actions.  Generally, Divisions lacked that tail. The HQ, Commo, Medical, QM, Corps Art, any attached cavalry, etc all took up a substantive amount of manpower.

So...if the N6 technique is too detailed (shame, as I had doodled out AH formations :) )my thoughts wander to the Corps has a 2000 person "HQ", with 4 x 12,000 person Divisions (including temporarily attached support units). Brigades would be 6,000, Regiments 3,000.   A bit more flexibility & divisibility, allowing better dispersion on borders.

I agree with you that the N3 Corps were too large for much operational flexibility. At the same time however, we are currently limiting ourselves in combat to the provinces as dictated in the map in the OP.

Darman's proposal is that the system decides the victory in the province. The player (rather uselessly IMO) can decide how the movements within the province were that lead to that decided result. This means we are really only concerned about province level movements. I think Brigades and Regiments might be too fine a breakdown for this.

I rather like the Corp HQ and 4x12k Division suggestion though.

[snip]

We, IMO, are in a damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't spot with regards to the simming of conflicts. If we do not sim conflicts, then it is unlikely that major wars will be fought as both parties must agree to it. Given the frequency of PvP wars and conflicts in WW and the feelings several players have with regards to the policy there (at ether extreme), I feel this is not the ideal option. Stagnation is an issue here when some parties drag there feet and/or be general PITA's. While on the other hand, if we attempt to do simming down to relatively small battles as they make up a larger conflict, then N3 shows us that things will slow to a crawl in large conflicts and kill off interest in the sim overall. This then lays an effective cap on how much combat can be done before the simmer and non-involved parties burn out. Splitting the proverbial baby, while not the most ideal, is the most effective solution IMO. It still allows for the benefits of both systems while (hopefully) minimizing the negatives. It would be posible for the simmer to write up reports in the N3 style based on the results, but I wished for the player-scripting underneath the sims both to take workload away from the simmer and to give the players more say in the specific ations at hand to avoid any long winded and sprited arguments about doctrine/tactics/logistics/technology/etc.

On the subject of the base unit. I am ok with it being whatever makes sense both size and name wise (I think we could drop to a division of ~12,000 and it would work better given the scale of the map, assuming costs are adjusted accordingly), but it must 1) Be constant for all, 2) Be large enough to allow for simming to be done at the strategic level.

[Kaiser Kirk]

On the province bit, the one concern I have (and I haven't had the time to follow closely) is how terrain and fortifications will play, particularly fortifications commanding chokepoints or landing zones. 

Imagine a Saxon army marching on Prague from Dresden...or vice versa. The main avenue is the pass along the Elbe. There's a nice small fortification there.  Because of the narrow pass, you can't bring the entire Corps/Army to bear. All you can do is bring up your siege guns and batter at it. Or storm it at tremendous loss- if morale holds up. Now, you can bypass it- but as long as it's there, commanding the pass with it's guns, your supplies are not going to get through, rendering your force much less effective. The odds go out the window in such a location.

As for Sims..

Unfortunately my experience in N3 was limited to
A) stepping in for the last turn of the 3rd Pacific War to provide Dutch moves after the player abandoned the war.
B) Trying to script the Ukrainian revolt with ESC/Russia/AH and Romania. Which was eye opening. There were miscommunications, delays, frustrations, crossed wires, etc.

I'm still of the general opinion that a moderated war is "doable". It's not based on any experience actually moderating stuff...
In my mind, it would be run on a "campaign" time scale. Monthly, or quarterly, with iterative phases. Failure to participate on a fixed schedule (outside of posted vacations/etc) would lead to defensive stands.

Phase 1
Player A would state goals and means of achieving them per theater.
"Goal 2: Siege and Take Trieste : III Corp marches on Goriza to threaten the AH (here just Austria I realize) railline to Trieste, IV Marines land south of Trieste to invest the landward side. XI and XII Corps cross the river and move along the coast towards Trieste, supported by the fleet".
Player B would state goals and means of achieving them per theater. 

Phase 2
Mod(s) would then do whatever and tell player B, General Von Herring becomes alerted to large Italian movements towards Goriza and what is the reaction ?  Likewise Player A gets more information and gets to respond. A hears theres larger than expected AH forces at Goriza. Decides to push on to Trieste, while B orders a division from Fiume to secure the southern communication route.

Phase 3
Mods would move to resolution. While the Italian army invests Trieste, the marines are rebuffed by the Fiume division and supplies can still get to the city.  Meanwhile the III Corp encounters growing AH presence at Goriza and winds up fighting a retreat as the AH strike Udine, sacking the city and turning south, threatening the land LOC for the main army at Trieste. The Italian Salient along the coast has been effectively flanked and is in peril of being cut off. Meanwhile the light AH navy forces from Fiume do not - as the Italians fear - engage in tip and run raids - but rather start aggressively mining off Venice and in the North Adriatic- threatening the Italian Army's maritime supply lines.

A couple sea battles, a couple land battle, no province actually turning over yet, fairly easy to resolve.

Back to Phase 1.

The problems would come if ..well ...me  were moding. I think I'm far more concerned about supply lines, terrain etc than most. But with pre-mechanized tech there didn't tend to be quick movement and decisions- even the Franco-Prussian War.

[Walter]

While it is a WW1 databook I have and not a 1900 databook, looking at the numbers in that book, the 50,000/25,000 figures do not seem too out of place. As indicated before, the average size of the division is 20,000 men which is not too far of the 25,000. In most cases, a WW1 corps consisted of 2 divisions and besides the HQ, there will be some other support stuff attached to the corps.

Making a rough breakdown while looking a bit on the GB TOE (which breaks the brigade down into battalions), you could probably end up with something like this...
50,000 men corps =  2x 20,000 men divisions + 10,000 men HQ&support
20,000 men division = 3x 4,000 men brigades + 8,000 men HQ&support
4,000 men brigade = 3x 1,200 men battalions + 400 men HQ&support

[snip]

On the province bit, the one concern I have (and I haven't had the time to follow closely) is how terrain and fortifications will play, particularly fortifications commanding chokepoints or landing zones. 

Imagine a Saxon army marching on Prague from Dresden...or vice versa. The main avenue is the pass along the Elbe. There's a nice small fortification there.  Because of the narrow pass, you can't bring the entire Corps/Army to bear. All you can do is bring up your siege guns and batter at it. Or storm it at tremendous loss- if morale holds up. Now, you can bypass it- but as long as it's there, commanding the pass with it's guns, your supplies are not going to get through, rendering your force much less effective. The odds go out the window in such a location.

I think the answer to this is to separate out "decisive battles", things that the war hinges on, such as the siege of a fort. If the simming of smaller actions is limited, I think it is manageable. Terrain can be accounted for by overlaying out province map onto a topographical one to give close enough approximations.

I'm still of the general opinion that a moderated war is "doable".

I think it is doable as well, if it takes place in a total vacuum from start to finish. Look at how many people ended up jumping into wars in N3 to see why I do not think that "lab" conditions can be maintained while offering up some measure of realism with other players entering and leaving conflicts.

In my mind, it would be run on a "campaign" time scale. Monthly, or quarterly, with iterative phases. Failure to participate on a fixed schedule (outside of posted vacations/etc) would lead to defensive stands.

Phase 1
Player A would state goals and means of achieving them per theater.
"Goal 2: Siege and Take Trieste : III Corp marches on Goriza to threaten the AH (here just Austria I realize) railline to Trieste, IV Marines land south of Trieste to invest the landward side. XI and XII Corps cross the river and move along the coast towards Trieste, supported by the fleet".
Player B would state goals and means of achieving them per theater. 

Phase 2
Mod(s) would then do whatever and tell player B, General Von Herring becomes alerted to large Italian movements towards Goriza and what is the reaction ?  Likewise Player A gets more information and gets to respond. A hears theres larger than expected AH forces at Goriza. Decides to push on to Trieste, while B orders a division from Fiume to secure the southern communication route.

Phase 3
Mods would move to resolution. While the Italian army invests Trieste, the marines are rebuffed by the Fiume division and supplies can still get to the city.  Meanwhile the III Corp encounters growing AH presence at Goriza and winds up fighting a retreat as the AH strike Udine, sacking the city and turning south, threatening the land LOC for the main army at Trieste. The Italian Salient along the coast has been effectively flanked and is in peril of being cut off. Meanwhile the light AH navy forces from Fiume do not - as the Italians fear - engage in tip and run raids - but rather start aggressively mining off Venice and in the North Adriatic- threatening the Italian Army's maritime supply lines.

A couple sea battles, a couple land battle, no province actually turning over yet, fairly easy to resolve.

Back to Phase 1.

I rather like this idea, and think it works with what we have already figured out as far as the actual siming of land combat regardless of scale goes.