Rallying and Activation

[sol_invictus]

A couple of things that always bothered me about the H@M games is the way that Rallying and Activations are handled. I think it would be better if the individual Battalions were assigned an automatic rally chance based on a national leadership value. I think the Army and Corps Commanders should still be able to Rally, but it should be limited to one or two Battalions.

I also think that once a Corp is in contact with the enemy, there should be an incresed chance for activation. I find it unrealistic that a Corp that is largely engaged with the enemy, suddenly decides to just stand idly by for a turn or two while they are being shot and assaulted. I don't think the 70% threshold in the older games for activation when Corps are engaged, really works well. I realize that this value can be changed in the editor, but I really think it should be a standard part of the game.

I am really looking forward to this new game because the H@M games are so great as email games.

[DeadInThrench]

In the game 'Great Battles (of Alexander, etc)' they had something similar to HnM activation... which I believe they called 'momentum'.... and with this, instead of a commander not being able to do his thing in a turn.... commanders with exceptional ratings got a chance of moving AGAIN in the same turn.... in fact could indeed move three times in a turn. Of course, units that had already moved could not move again but, the leader could use his rally points again to rally more units... and this is a significant factor in that game... just like in HnM.

However.... once they got to tournament games with GB.... the momentum factor was such a deciding factor in who won or lost.... they had a hacker generate a special version of the game that had momentum turned off... this for tournament play.

Maybe with HnM3.... there should be an option to turn 'activation failure' off... and then all leaders would at least get to move their troops.

Hmmm.... IMO.... 'activation failure' adds to the overall historical feel of the era, as there were many, many cases in history where this commander or that one just frooze, got confused, or whatever. Still.... in you are playing PBEM.... you could have a situation where your position just collapses because your leaders failed their activation rolls, and this may be accurate historically, but is also not much fun.

So.... maybe 'activation failure' should be an option that can be turned off if doing PBEM as a normalizing/balancing factor. If turned off.... possibly the chances of recovering moral and disruption should be reduced.

DiT

[sol_invictus]

I have absolutely no problem with a chance of failed activation since, as you stated, it happenes all the time in warfare. Courier gets killed, orders are misinterpreted, and subordinates are incompetent. I just think that once a formation has gotten on the move toward the enemy and is in contact in a battle, there should be very little chance that the entire Corps just stares blankly at the enemy while a good sized portion of the Corps is being shot at. I don't have a problem with a Corps that is in reserve or at its initial starting position having trouble advancing to the attack. I think that 70% of the Corps has to be in an enemy zoc for automatic activation. I think this should simply be greatly lowered to somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-30%. If this and the way that Rallying is improved, I think I will play this game for years. I guess I probably will in any event, but I do hope the Devs consider looking at these two portions of the game.

[anvl]

How nice it would be to have sliders for all these variables, so we could experiment and fine tune the game to our own needs and imaginings as to how "reality" actually was. With of course,, a ingame check to make sure that during a pbem game,, both sides sliders were the same...

I too look foreward to this game,, as i have been playing it since its first release the original Dragoon!!

I hope the changes are more than i expect,, but at the very least,, they will deal with the worst of the gliches.. for me that is command\control.. the ability for the ai to form lines\formations and move them,, thus getting rid of what DiT calls "dithering",, and for player controlled troops to sucessfully form and maneuver "group moves"

I think they already said they were going to fix the "too many phases in a pbem turn" problem. The other major problem with the game...

all else to me is gravy.. but nothing wrong with a lil gravy too...

anvil

[DeadInThrench]

Every time I think about suggesting a change to the activation design of HnM... I balk.. because in the REAL battles things were really chaotic... you never knew what was gonna happen next.. and the activation design seems to force this and... another advantage is no two battles are ever alike.

However.... that doesn't mean the design can't be enhanced/improved... IMO.

And... first off.... just because a leader went into a funk.... doesn't mean that his units already engaged stopped shooting. So... minimally... if a leader fails activation... can't move and can't move any of his units or order them to assult, and can't rally but.... his units still shoot... and units that his units are engaged with.... still shoot defensively.

Right now... if both commanders on each side of an engaged part of a battle fail their activation rolls... then all the units in that area of the battle... stop shooting for a period of time <g> and... that is completely unrealistic historically. Even if a commander fails his activation... his units... and the units his units are engaged with... should still fire.

Next... to address your concern (if I am not mistaken). Yeah, commanders would at times go into a funk but... usually if they did or did not.... it was for a period of time not off and on.

So... IMO.... would be better if.... when a commander became active... they became active for a period of turns... and you would know how long that commander would be active. In other words... if you got a message.. Schwerin is active for 5 turns... then you would know exactly how long he was gonna be active and plan his actions accordingly. Probably.... if the commander fails his activation... then he should be inactive for a number of turns also but... in THIS case.... you are not told how long that is gonna be (part of the confusion there).

If anything.... this would potentially make the battles even more chaotic then they are now... with commanders going into extended funks or coming out of them for extended periods. But.... if you at least know how long a given commander if gonna be active... you can plan his moves accordingly and IMO that makes for a better game.

DiT

P.S. Possibly the range of time that a commander can become active... would be settable in the scenario.

[DeadInThrench]

OK... I think I have come up with a design (for what it's worth) that satisfies what we are looking at here...

First.... put a parameter in the scenario fields.... ACTIVATION CHANGE PERCENT... and this can be set anywhere's from 100% (which would leave things as they are now) to 0% (which would mean commanders would never change from their initial activation result). This would be used each time an activation check is supposed to be made. If it fails then no activation check is made and instead, the commander stays at whatever activation level they were at on the previous turn. If it succedes then an activation check is made normally. The purpose of this is to have commanders active or inactive for periods of time rather than bouncing around from turn to turn... and allowing this to be set in the scenario data gives the scenario designers the opportunity to experiment with different values until they come up with the right stuff.

Then.... when an activation check is made... the computer continues checking for successive turns until the commander's activation level changes.

Then... when you get the message.... Schwerin is active for 7 turns.... you know Schwerin is gonna be active for 7 turns and then will be inactive for at least one turn.

With this..... commanders with higher ratings are much more likely to be active for extended periods... while those with lower ratings are much more likely to be inactive for extended periods.

So.... if you get Schwerin active for 7 turns... what has he decided to do within the scope of the battle? If we are talking Mollwitz here... well... he has decided to cross the battlefield and destroy the Austrian position. Well, as a player... go for it!

But.... if you just get Scherwin active for 5 turns... well, he has decided to cross the battlefield and engage the Austrians (and then go from there).

If just 3 turns... well... move into position to engage the Austrians (and then go from there).

If just 1 turn.... well, probably just move forward some and, for now, continue bombarding with the artillery.

In any case..... you will know what you are looking at with Schwerin and thus can make the decision as to what he is gonna do.

If he is inactive... well, the computer has calculated how long it will be until he becomes active again... but does not tell you. So.... in this case.... if a commander is inactive you do not know how long it will be for. But... in general, commanders with higher ratings are not gonna stay inactive very long.

If instead of Schwerin here.... we are talking the British general Abercrombie at the Battle of Carrilon, well, what you can expect is inactive, inactive, inactive... and you never know if he is gonna come out of his funk... and could indeed go the entire battle and not come out of it.

But.... if you get... sheesh.... Abercrombie is active for 3 turns... far out <g>! So, what can you do with Abercrombie for 3 turns. Well, probably get him into the battle as far as rallying his troops, or maybe, go get the provincials and get them into the battle.

In any case.... if you get Abercrombie active for 3 turns.... you will know what you are getting and can then make the call as to what he is gonna do for those 3 turns. Otherwise, he will be inactive and you never know how long that is gonna be for.

Hmm... when commanders are inactive IMO their units should still be able to shoot. So, if inactive they should still do a turn but only the fire phases are executed. With this, rather than active or inactive... might be better to use the terms 'confident' and 'confused'. The latter term is really descriptive of Abercrombie's actions at Carillon... just sat there for the entire battle while his troops kept fighting their losing battle.

IMO... this satisfies what we are looking for with the concerns on activation. The chaos of how the battle unfolds is still there.... but when you get something you know what you are getting and are thus in a much better position to use what you are getting effectively. It also, IMO, makes the battles more interesting and thus, more fun.

Comments?

DiT

[sol_invictus]

The problem, as far as there is a problem, is that the Battalions are completely dependent on the Corp Commander and can perform no action if he does not activate. The Battalions should be able to perform basic functions on their own; both combat against enemy units in close proximity and rally attempts. As it is now, the Battalions are unthinking cogs that are incapable of anything outside of direct Corp Command. Where are all of the Colonels and Majors within the Corp? The Corp Commander shouldn't have to micro-manage the entire Corp.

I don't have the answer to what I see as an issue, but I imagine that assigning a value to each Battalion or Squadron, based on national/army competence, would allow these units to behave in a more thinking state and not like helpless and mindless gobs of men. I am not advocating that the Corp Commander become irrelevent, as he should continue to have a limited direct rally ability for one or two battalions, in addition to the Battalion/Squadron's own inherent ability. But the Corp Commanders role should be confined to having the Corp function as a coherent fighting body.

If the Corp Commander fails activation, combat will become sporadic, the Corp advance will become bogged down, and the ability of the Battalions/Squadrons to maintain cohesion and avoid retreat will be lessened somewhat. I am not sure how big of a programming chore these type of changes would be from the current engine, but from a complete lack of programming knowledge, I think it might be doable. I guess only a Dev could thoughtfully weigh in.

[DeadInThrench]

Hmmm.... I would agree that, when a commander is inactive, that their units should still be able to fire (and be fired at) and defend theirselves.... but don't agree that they should be able to do things otherwise. Retreat (and routing) by individual units is already handled in the game. Otherwise, individual actions by battalions (including movement, removing disruption and rallying) .... was something that just didn't happen. They were supposed to stay where they were (but would fire if an enemy came within range... and would defend themselves) until they were told to do otherwise.

The design I proposed eliminates commander's activation from bouncing around from turn to turn.. and eliminates the problem where you think you can attack with a commander and his units.... but then get stopped halfways across the battlefield. In the design I proposed.... you have periods of turns where a commander is active or inactive and, if active, know beforehand how many turns this is gonna be and can thus plan the actions of the commander and his units, accordingly.

If you want units to be able to do whatever they want.... back to my original suggestion of all commanders always being active. But, because this moves away from history, for the sake of balanced play, I would recommend that this be an option for PBEM (or direct play) only.

In the old SSI ACW series... they had four levels of 'activation'. Confident, cautious, indecisive, and confused, and it is interesting to think of HnM3 in terms along these lines, with some actions but not all allowed for cautious and indecisive. But, IMO, in general this was not what happened. Either a leader was confident.... and did what he decided... or he was confused... not knowing what to do and thus thinking about things. So, IMO, the two tiered approach used in HnM3 is more appropriate.

DiT

[sol_invictus]

I don't want Battalions to be able to move independently, sorry if I gave that impression, I only think they should be able to defend themselves and rally independent of the Corp Commander. I don't think if a Battalion is wavering or in actuall retreat, that the Battalion Commander is going to throw his hands up and just watch his Battalion crumble. Are you implying that it is unrealistic to assume that a Battalion Commander would take the initiative to hold his command together as a cohesive force without direct orders from the Corp Commander? If so, then I completely disagree.

[DeadInThrench]

I think it is obvious that battalion commanders did everything in their power to keep their units in place.... and if this COMPANY or that wavered.... well, the battalion commander would be going here and there rallying each of his companies to the best he could.

But..... I think this is ingrained in the overall game system as it stands. If a battalion as a whole loses morale or routs.... then the battalion commander has already done the best he can to keep his troops morale up and.... has in fact lost morale himself or routed with his battalion.

So..... once things get to this point IMO that is where the wing, corps or overall commander comes into play. Other than giving orders to the units under his command, going here and there rallying his troops was his major job. This is different than a battalion commander because of the level of the command and also because the commander is not part of the unit being rallyed. Almost like having a reserve of supplies and giving it to those units that need it.

One could have something where units recover one morale point per turn (or maybe have a chance at that) but, I don't see where this would be necessary and would tend to unbalance the game as it stands now.

As far as recovering disruption... same thing IMO. If a commander is confused his battalions are gonna wait until he decides what he is gonna do. Well, MAYBE you could have battlions in this case (commander inactive) recover disruption automatically at the end of the turn but at a much reduced rate.

If units were allowed to do some things when their commander is inactive... IMO... would be best if the computer handled the entire commander turn. First fire, defensive fire, then anything else.

One thing that IS needed.... terminal rout. There should be a chance when low quality units rout that they TERMINALLY rout... cannot be rallyed and head for the hills.

Another thing that is needed... permanent moral loss. With this you keep track of the total morale loss that a unit has experienced and once it goes over a certain threshold, the highest morale that that unit could get back to would be 9... then over the next threshold... then the highest that that unit could get back to would be 8.... etc.

Another thing from my perspective.... IMO... commanders should be required to MOVE to units that they are rallying.... this is not something that can be done from a distance.. and thus if commanders are not within one hex of a unit then their cost for recovery attempt is doubled... and if they are more than, say, 2 hexes away, then they cannot rally the unit. I can see giving commands to subordinates at a distance but rallying troops, has to be done up close.

DiT

[sol_invictus]

Well I don't think that our desires are all that far apart, just by a few degrees. I completely agree with you that Permanent and Terminal rout should be included, because as it is now, a Trained unit is way to easy to rally and bring back up to full morale. I imagine that after a marginal unit routed, it was very difficult to get them back under control and even if that was accomplished, they would remain very fragile for the duration of the battle and be very likely to rout again if placed under a situation of stress. I can recall several instances where even Napoleon and Frederick could not able to halt a rout even with direct intervention.

I also hope that the Withdrawl level for the Armies is changed so that once an Army reaches its Withdrawl level, it retires from the field and the battle ends. I look forward to hearing what the Devs have in mind for the new engine. We should hopefully hear something shortly.

[DeadInThrench]

I really liked the idea I came up with re having an ACTIVATION CHANGE PERCENT parameter, and using this so that, overall commanders would still be active or inactive the same percent they are now.... but would be active or inactive for periods of turns much more often rather than varying from active to inactive from turn to turn.

Also... the related idea.... letting players know how long a commander was gonna be active (with the understanding that the commander would be INACTIVE at least for one turn after the active turns have completed)... as it would allow players to plan what that commander is gonna do with the turns he is active.

I think the bottom line here is.... "Does the game come off as being more 'historical' given the random factors and the decisions that players make?", and, "Would this function make HnM3 a better game?".

I sure think the answers to both of these questions would be YES, and furthermore this change might just make HnM3 more fun to play because you would be able to plan what your commanders are gonna do once they become active.

But.... like you say the 'Devs' gotta make the call here so... Tim, you getting this <g>?

DiT

[sol_invictus]

I certainly like the chaotic feel that the activation system provides. I simply would prefer it to be refined a bit. Not sure how drasticly the Devs are planning to update/enhance the engine.

[DeadInThrench]

With the original HnM, armies would withdraw immediately at the start of a turn if their withdraw level had been reached. The problem with this.. is you would try to push the emeny just past his withdrawal level and not much care about anything else and.... this got to be somewhat unrealstic IMO and I imagine that is why they changed it in HnM2.

However... in HnM2... sheesh... I played one battle (the Fort Carrilon scenario developed for HnM that I converted to PWM)... where I had the enemy WAY below his withdrawal level and the game kept going and going. Hmmm.... actually I believe in one case I had to wipe the enemy completely off the map (and it STILL didn't end the battle if I recall correctly).

So, maybe this needs to be looked into for HnM3 and tweeked to work better.

Oh.... another thing here.... and sooner or later this was something that was gonna come up... should have victory points for casualties inflicted (or maybe the percent of the enemy that has been eliminated). As things stand now.... one side or the other gets forced to withdraw and the other side gets all objectives and thus one side or the other always gets a decisive victory. Could stand improvement on this!

DiT

[sol_invictus]

Agreed. I played Lobositz in an email game once, and both armies were down to around 20% of their original force. It was absolute carnage.

[Tim Coakley]

Few things...

In the future, I want to have 2 #s...the first (higher) is the # now used in HnM2 for withdrawl level...the player loses a victory level.

The second # would be end of game as in HnM1.


You must also remember that losses do not always = men killed. There are KIA, WIA, missing, prisoners, stragglers.

VP: future change to include VP for loses (settable by unit). On my list.

I would like to incorporate all these in the future to give a better feel for the losses.
----------------------
Activation: I want to have the % as a user definable setting in the future. There are pros and cons to any system, so I think that is as far as I will take the activation changes.
I will look at auto-rally.
I also want to look at a penalty for delaying an activation.


All in due time.

Tim

[sol_invictus]

Sounds good to me, so long as you guys are looking at these things and making some tweaks here and there, that is all I would expect.