how a battle is conducted

[Ascended]

Hello friends

I've been working my way through the interface and have learned the basics of control and also what all the different terms are and to what they each refer. Now I'm moving on to how the game actually operates. So here are some first questions on battle simulation. Starting from the section in the manual...

Ground combat is conducted by an automated tactical combat system that consists of
a variable number of rounds where ground elements engage each other. In general, the
computer first determines the opening range at which combat will take place. This is largely
based on defending terrain, with battles in city and urban hexes commencing at shorter initial
ranges. The attacker fires first at ranges of 3000 yards or greater, while the defender fires first at ranges less than 3000 yards.

Does this mean that the attacker has the advantage by being able to take out some defenders before they can get a shot off?

Or, do defender units remain "hidden" until they fire?

The next step is to determine which ground elements will be able to fire. There are multiple
factors involved, to include the type of attack (hasty or deliberate), enemy unit detection level
(DL), defending fortification modifier, attacking unit morale and supply status (especially
ammo), individual ground element experience, fatigue, ammo usage and range of their
equipped devices, and leader initiative and ground combat rating (mech or infantry) checks

Can this be expanded a bit? What does a hasty or deliberate attack change for each unit availability?

Specifically, though they are listed here, I'd like to know exactly what each item on the list is doing.

Due to Soviet attack doctrine, defending Axis ground elements will have a better chance
to fire at attacking Soviet ground elements.

Which attack doctrine is that? How much better a chance? Does it change throughout the war?

Ground elements that have successfully passed their checks will then fire their equipped
devices that are within range at an opposing ground element.

With multiple targets available how does a unit choose which to fire at? I assume range and unit type are the key factors. Please explain in a bit more detail if possible.

The amount of ammo on hand impacts the number of shots taken in combat. If over 100%, the
combat unit may get an extra shot. If less than 50%, the combat unit will likely get fewer shots,
Longer range artillery units will fire less often if ammo is under 75%.

Is there a point where a unit will "Go cyclic", so to speak, and use up it's ammo at peak rates in order to try to survive?


Lastly, what kind of formation is being used for the two units as they approach each other in the simulation?

[cookie monster]

Just watch the combats at level 4 or higher

Press key 4.

The inner workings of the combat would take the programmer to explain

[Cerion]

Interesting questions. I also will be attentive to the answers [:)].

[Ascended]

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

Just watch the combats at level 4 or higher

Press key 4.

The inner workings of the combat would take the programmer to explain

Or a designer, or someone who has spoken to the designer in the past. The combat messages don't really answer the questions, but I'll keep an eye on them for formation info and post that.

[Ascended]

Observations

-- Attacker anti tank weapons come under fire before they themselves are employed, what is the reasoning behind that?  Is it possible to exclude all anti-tank assets from attack?  Or force them to only deploy at a later phase?

-- Some names, like "Rifle Squad", being used by both sides makes telling who is doing what to whom impossible

-- The vast majority of combat units get no effect from their fire.  What do they do after they've had their shot?  Are they recycled into the queue for the next phase of range or are they "spent" for the remainder of the combat phase?

-- Sometimes I get oddball firing ranges like "541" - what's happening here?

-- One side will accumulate casualties from Rifle Squads in the thousands without the other side losing a single man - why is that?  (I assume these are rifle squads that have already been shot at, succeeded their check, and are now attacking?)

I'll pause there

[PeeDeeAitch]

If I said it is all magic you probably wouldn't like that. Whenever I try to understand stuff like this, my head hurts.

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

If I said it is all magic you probably wouldn't like that. Whenever I try to understand stuff like this, my head hurts.

I know what you mean. I don't think the man's gonna get an answer.

Not unless Helpless chips in.

[PyleDriver]

Its GaryWorld, I don't anyone else can get it....

[Ascended]

I think it's reasonable to want to know how this works in some detail, as it is really what it all comes down to.  Everything else is just tracking & tallying. In some cases, the things I see in the combat resolution window lead me to believe the results won't match what they ought to, historically. In particular, defenders getting to shoot at attacker anti-tank guns *before* those anti-tank guns are put into action seems like it will make these weapons difficult to preserve against enemy forces that aren't heavily armored, and against those that are, difficult to employ at all.

[Mynok]

Glad to see you are getting into the game! [;)]

Level 4 combat reports will definitely get you a feel as to how things go down in combat, but probably not to the level you're wanting. It really is kind of a 'feel' thing that you get by nothing more than constant repetition.

Artillery will definitely put a hurting on AT units. The only counter is your own artillery, so the rule is to bring as much as you can, especially Guns, as they do better with counter battery fire. Arty is still the queen of battle, and infantry is still the king. Use that as a basis for your assaults and you'll do fine.

[squatter]

Welcome to the brick wall of understanding in the game, Ascended. I too wanted to know how it all worked once. But there are some parts of the engine that appear to reside like a KFC recipe solely in Gary 'col Saunders' Grigsby's head.
 
I can imagine it's a product of the way that GG works, but I can't say it seems like to best way to construct a game. This way, no-one else can check things are working, spot bugs within it. We can just observe the final results and see if they tally with the way we would expect the combat to work out. This faith-based programming approach cant be beneficial to the testing process, I would have thought.
 
The rather unhelpful suggestions to 'watch on message level 4' will just raise more questions about the fine print than they answer, as you have discovered.
 
As you've seen, the way the engine executes combat appears to be in a series of WWI style bombardments and walking advances. Thankfully, though, the end result appears pretty sound, reflecting the balance of forces involved pretty soundly.
 
At the end of the day, the most important consideration are the relative CV values of the units involved. This is how combat works, it seems to me:
1. Starting CV values for the units involved are totalled. Terrain, forts, and weather figured in.
2. Air support goes in, knocking out elements that might otherwise have taken part in step 3.
3. A series of WWI attacks play out, each one at a decreasing range, in which a percentage of the ground elements of each side fire at each other.
4. At the end of all this, a final CV calculation is made, affected by losses during 2 and 3, and by leadership roles.
5. The final CV values are compared to produce the battle odds.
6. The odds are used to determined retreat or hold, with further losses inflicted with the former.
 
A rough assessment, but that's how I've come to understand how to 'read' the engine.
 
Can I just point out that none of this is to say the game is anything other than superb.
 

[Aditia]

ORIGINAL: Ascended

I think it's reasonable to want to know how this works in some detail, as it is really what it all comes down to.  Everything else is just tracking & tallying. In some cases, the things I see in the combat resolution window lead me to believe the results won't match what they ought to, historically. In particular, defenders getting to shoot at attacker anti-tank guns *before* those anti-tank guns are put into action seems like it will make these weapons difficult to preserve against enemy forces that aren't heavily armored, and against those that are, difficult to employ at all.

This should be based on doctrine of either army. Keep in mind that attackers always, in any fight, have the disadvantage of having to make contact with the defenders before they themselves can fire. With guns usually towed they have to be put in place before being able to fire at defended positions, at which time the defenders can put down fire on a piece of equipment that is being made ready for action.
Guns that require direct line of fire don't spawn miracilously, they need to be put in harm's way before being able to support the infantry

[Mynok]

I found the level 4 extremely helpful. It gives you a sense of the different stages of combat resolution. It helps you understand which stages each weapon/unit type contribute to.

I don't particularly care about much detail below that. The game would become a math problem rather than a strategy game. I hate math.

[Ascended]

ORIGINAL: squatter

Welcome to the brick wall of understanding in the game, Ascended. I too wanted to know how it all worked once. But there are some parts of the engine that appear to reside like a KFC recipe solely in Gary 'col Saunders' Grigsby's head.

I can imagine it's a product of the way that GG works, but I can't say it seems like to best way to construct a game. This way, no-one else can check things are working, spot bugs within it. We can just observe the final results and see if they tally with the way we would expect the combat to work out. This faith-based programming approach cant be beneficial to the testing process, I would have thought.

The rather unhelpful suggestions to 'watch on message level 4' will just raise more questions about the fine print than they answer, as you have discovered.

As you've seen, the way the engine executes combat appears to be in a series of WWI style bombardments and walking advances. Thankfully, though, the end result appears pretty sound, reflecting the balance of forces involved pretty soundly.

At the end of the day, the most important consideration are the relative CV values of the units involved. This is how combat works, it seems to me:
1. Starting CV values for the units involved are totalled. Terrain, forts, and weather figured in.
2. Air support goes in, knocking out elements that might otherwise have taken part in step 3.
3. A series of WWI attacks play out, each one at a decreasing range, in which a percentage of the ground elements of each side fire at each other.
4. At the end of all this, a final CV calculation is made, affected by losses during 2 and 3, and by leadership roles.
5. The final CV values are compared to produce the battle odds.
6. The odds are used to determined retreat or hold, with further losses inflicted with the former.

A rough assessment, but that's how I've come to understand how to 'read' the engine.

Can I just point out that none of this is to say the game is anything other than superb.

Solid, thanks!

[Ascended]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Glad to see you are getting into the game! [;)]

Level 4 combat reports will definitely get you a feel as to how things go down in combat, but probably not to the level you're wanting. It really is kind of a 'feel' thing that you get by nothing more than constant repetition.

Artillery will definitely put a hurting on AT units. The only counter is your own artillery, so the rule is to bring as much as you can, especially Guns, as they do better with counter battery fire. Arty is still the queen of battle, and infantry is still the king. Use that as a basis for your assaults and you'll do fine.

Understood... and yeah I think you were right btw

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Aditia

Keep in mind that attackers always, in any fight, have the disadvantage of having to make contact with the defenders before they themselves can fire. With guns usually towed they have to be put in place before being able to fire at defended positions, at which time the defenders can put down fire on a piece of equipment that is being made ready for action.

Spoken like someone who's never been in a firefight. What you say might be true some of engegements, perhaps even most, but well conceived plans when the enemy dispositions are largely known can prove to unfold otherwise. Many times, the first the defenders know of an impending attack is when the enemy artillery fire decimates the front lines, followed quickly by tanks pouring into the gaps and taking out artillery, headquaters, and generally creating havoc.

And, who said that towed artillery, mortars, and the like, have to be placed in view of the enemy before they can be employed? Except in totally flat desert with no terrain features, there are always defilade positions from which indirect fire weapons can do their thing, without taking fire. Been there, done that. Again, I'm not saying that towed units never took direct fire, I'm just sayying that they usually did not have to. Gun bunnies don't have death wishes.