Flanking?

[MarkShot]

I must say the game has a tremendous amount of detail; an impressive amount.

Yesterday, I finished reading the manual.

Is there no concept of facing and flanking? I saw no mention as advantageous position is generally considered a force multiplier.

Thanks.

[loki100]

flanking is in very indirectly. If you have to retreat through ZoCs (into hexes occupied by your units), you pick up extra attrition. The effect is variable, a high morale/high experience formation will only show minimal extra losses but for a low morale/low exp this can be the thing that tips it into a multi-hex retreat or even a rout

[MarkShot]

There doesn’t seem much in the manual on ZOCs are they explained somewhere?

Does some map overlay highlight them?

Thanks.

[squatter]

Right from the early days of WitE1 I was astonished that flanking had no impact on the combat engine in this game. There was discussion of it but nothing got changed, which I assume is chiefly down to something in the coding that prevents a flanking mechanic being introduced.

Currently, three divisions can attack from the same direction, or attack from three different directions - but the combat resolution is unchanged (apart from during retreats as Loki points out). Which is clearly absurd.

It’s one of the biggest, most obvious failings in an otherwise generally great combat engine

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: squatter

Right from the early days of WitE1 I was astonished that flanking had no impact on the combat engine in this game. There was discussion of it but nothing got changed, which I assume is chiefly down to something in the coding that prevents a flanking mechanic being introduced.

Currently, three divisions can attack from the same direction, or attack from three different directions - but the combat resolution is unchanged (apart from during retreats as Loki points out). Which is clearly absurd.

It’s one of the biggest, most obvious failings in an otherwise generally great combat engine

The problem is how. The CV is not really a classic board game attack factor, its a construct. More than that, we all know its not easy to read. So simply modifying that would be really misleading - I presume you too can remember the distinctly artificial situations that occured with the Soviet +1 rule in 1941 in WiTE1.

In other words you either generate a very artificial bonus (that in turn is so valuable you distort game play) tied to the cv or the final odds or ... ? I know there are games that include this (Vic's basic combat engine is one eg) but there the whole game series has been built on the concept.

In testing, the decision to load losses into combat rather than retreat was a major decision. Its one reason the WiTE2 code was split from WiTW as it would have been impossible to test the latter for balance if the combat engine underwent a major shift (& one that is very much out of sight for most players).

There are real advantages to outnumbering your opponent in terms of how the combat engine functions. I'd suggest that indirectly reflects the ability to overwhelm a defender via suppression and disruption. In many case, that sort of numerical advantage will flow from a multi-hex attack.

I'm not saying its right, but its a simplification that runs all the way through the game. As an eg of just how hard it is to change the fundamentals, look at the enduring set of odd bugs that the city fort concept keeps on producing.

[Mehring]

On a ten mile hex scale, flanking is not usually a consideration in the sense of enfilade fire. I'm not sure if it was carried into v2, but v1 introduced advantage in the number of possible elements committed to combat per hex, which gives a combat advantage to attacks made from multiple directions. I think that does it nicely at this scale.

[MarkShot]

ORIGINAL: squatter

Right from the early days of WitE1 I was astonished that flanking had no impact on the combat engine in this game. There was discussion of it but nothing got changed, which I assume is chiefly down to something in the coding that prevents a flanking mechanic being introduced.

Currently, three divisions can attack from the same direction, or attack from three different directions - but the combat resolution is unchanged (apart from during retreats as Loki points out). Which is clearly absurd.

It’s one of the biggest, most obvious failings in an otherwise generally great combat engine

Yes, I am blown away by the detail. And I thought must have missed something in vastness of the game. But most games:

* If Statistical, then flanking fire is a force multiplier.

* If Physics Driven, then orientation of defensive works and field of fire will produce a similar result.

ZOCs may handle it, but usually the psychology and fire effects are not so subtle.

So, here you have the concept of soldiers who are not moving begin digging in. But with that is some sense of facing, and where the enemy is expected.

Finally, it is not clear full encirclement is always best ... Basic art of war, leave soldiers no retreat and they will fight to the death; especially how the Germans and Soviets viewed one another. Don't close a pocket and force them to run for their lives without their heavy weapons, and you may well take ground with few losses. When you fight them again, they will be wielding panzerfaust60 instead of the dreaded 88mm ATG.

But it is tough to really handle human factors.

[squatter]

Finally, it is not clear full encirclement is always best ... Basic art of war, leave soldiers no retreat and they will fight to the death; especially how the Germans and Soviets viewed one another. Don't close a pocket and force them to run for their lives without their heavy weapons, and you may well take ground with few losses. When you fight them again, they will be wielding panzerfaust60 instead of the dreaded 88mm ATG.

Not sure I understand your point here?

[MarkShot]

Forcing a retreat while leaving his heavy weapons behind may be a greater strategic value than making the enemy fight to his death and yours.

The whole Sun Tzu back against the river thing.

This becomes more of an issue as weapons increase in killing power viv-a-vis the single combatant and light arms. (but maybe it would have been better in a separate thread and not as a logical extension of flanking)

[beamslam]

To me flanking occur when a enemy force threatening to roll up your flank or move behind your rear and cut off the line of communications. This is possible difficult to simulate in this games scale.
When units starts to dig in facing the direction where the enemy expected to come from. Now if the threat comes from the flank you need to change the position of some Battalions and they loose the benefit of their previous fortifications. And the other units still in position will loose the support of the units moving to face the new threat. So on the divisional scale the "fortification level" goes down.
So a way to simulate the flanking could be to lower the fort level for the "front direction" but this is not defined for the units in the game. Another way could be to reduce the readiness level for the defenders and increase the fatigue.

[squatter]

ORIGINAL: beamslam

To me flanking occur when a enemy force threatening to roll up your flank or move behind your rear and cut off the line of communications. This is possible difficult to simulate in this games scale.
When units starts to dig in facing the direction where the enemy expected to come from. Now if the threat comes from the flank you need to change the position of some Battalions and they loose the benefit of their previous fortifications. And the other units still in position will loose the support of the units moving to face the new threat. So on the divisional scale the "fortification level" goes down.
So a way to simulate the flanking could be to lower the fort level for the "front direction" but this is not defined for the units in the game. Another way could be to reduce the readiness level for the defenders and increase the fatigue.

Imagine you have a single division defending a hex. There is no fortification level, the division has just deployed.

Which of these two scenarios would you say is easier to defend against than the other?

A) Three enemy divisions all attacking from the North.

B) Three enemy divisions attacking, one from the North, one from the South, one from the East.

[Duck Doc]

The problem of flanking has always fallen victim to the representation of a linear construct (battle line) by a square counter in a hexagonal gaming universe. Using hexagons a designer can adjust combat strength to account for facing but inevitably the outcome is gamey and unrealistic. Ditto for stacking rules and fortification strength. There are other issues about how battlefield intelligence and surprise are represented in flanking movements and such.

In other words, oood luck coming to a consensus on this perennial problem.

Good to see you, Mark. It has been a while.

[rob89]

ORIGINAL: loki100

There are real advantages to outnumbering your opponent in terms of how the combat engine functions. I'd suggest that indirectly reflects the ability to overwhelm a defender via suppression and disruption. In many case, that sort of numerical advantage will flow from a multi-hex attack.

I'm not saying its right, but its a simplification that runs all the way through the game. As an eg of just how hard it is to change the fundamentals, look at the enduring set of odd bugs that the city fort concept keeps on producing.

It's a brute force approach.

In the real world, many times flanking operations by small forces won the day... without big losses or great battles...

[Bamilus]

Pretty sure flanking is beneath the scale of the game. The hexes and counter sizes represent entire battles/operations (emphasis on the plural), along with the abstraction of ZoC impacts, in each individual "combat". So yea, you could try and apply some sort of flanking bonus but to me that's more of a tactical consideration rather than an operational/strategic. However, "flanking" from the standpoint of German begewungskrieg or Soviet deep battle operations are well represented in this game, which is appropriate for the scale.

To Duck Doc's point, you'll never reach a consensus. I've seen "flanking" bonuses for combat in board games of this scale, but I've disagreed with it. It's best to give any flanking bonuses via the abstraction of ZoC or to simulate the cutting off of supply, which is appropriate at this scale.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: squatter

Imagine you have a single division defending a hex. There is no fortification level, the division has just deployed.

Which of these two scenarios would you say is easier to defend against than the other?

A) Three enemy divisions all attacking from the North.

B) Three enemy divisions attacking, one from the North, one from the South, one from the East.

There's no absolute answer. The defending division occupies a central position from which, given that it is not on this scale subject to enfilading fire, it can more easily redeploy as necessary. Whether or not the dispersal of attacking force is an advantage or not is entirely conditional.

[GloriousRuse]

As others have certainly hit on, at this scale flanking is far more a result of deployment and orientation resulting in mismatch than it is something as simple as “we attacked from two sides”. If nothing else, the range of direct fire weapons is only going to be mutually supporting near the seams… let’s look at a few examples of how this could be a coding nightmare:

1. You have a unit holding the neck of a penetration. Let’s imagine it’s commander has a nice conservative one regiment facing north, one facing south, a central reserve and the division guns and trains between, and is tied in to friendly troops along the front, meaning his east and west are “empty”. How do we program that not only visibly, but with an AI that can reach to in turn developments to prevent wild gaming of facings at odds with the scale? And to prevent a death by a million clicks or orienting tony bits of force structure?

If you attack with three divisions from the north, they strike one regiment which gets reinforced by the reserve, creating a 9:2 or so and then dislocating all the support and forcing the southern regiment to flee. Attack two on one side and one on the other and you get 3:1 odds effectively deployed. And that’s if you don’t screw up the timing. Here flanking was probably actively detrimental. Can I program it to show that flanking at the level in question is many times going to end up creating a broad and more even engagement rather than a victory against a narrow point, while in others it meets no resistance?

But if the reserve marches to the wrong side, flanking is positive again. Invisible leader checks? But if you mess up the timing, you actually get attacks defeated in detail? Massive increase to the split HQ malus while flanking, but only if the internal arrangement of the target would penalize it? More leader checks? Where do you record this? What happens when the “realistic” answer might be the side with a river can hold later, so maybe a good commander would crush the non-river side attack and then turn all but a tiny force to slaughter the river crossing in turn? And if players disagree with the micro-tactics involved?

2. A plain old piece of the line, two up one back. When should it transition to a “neck” upon hearing a tank corps broke through forty miles north? Triggered to MP of the pen unit? Lots of super game manipulation going to happen there, and completely below the level of stavka/okh ability to even perceive. When hexes turn? But wouldn’t that make you impossible to flank of the AI auto redeployed to counter each time? Can it only redeploy of not in Zoc? Is that one airborne brigade really keeping mannstein from noticing the onrushing tank army and keeping his divisions facing “forward?”. Can’t at all? So those FJs have been listening to reports of Russians coming down the line for half a week, and no one thought to turn?

3. A fortress coty conducting a 360 degree defense by nature with interior lines falling back on a river port. Hoo boy, try that one on.


———

As Boyd would tell us, flanks at this level are simply directions from which we are unprepared to receive an attack, and by nature fleeting and transitive, opportunities found and taken or lost in the moment, far more reflective of initiative and surprise than any set geometry. If you can program that…hats off.

And there is the mega elephant in the room - after all that effort, would we substantially change the battle or campaign outcomes? Or would it all even out to something represented by a few numbers like NM and leader skills?

[squatter]

Ok, forget facing, I agree that's not going to be implementable. But that's not what I'm talking about in any case (although I do agree with OP that fort level should be compromised by attacks from several directions)

What's in question is the concept of "being attacked simultaneously from several directions"

I just can't see how as a general rule, at any scale, that it is anything other than a truism that being attacked from several directions at once, is worse than being attacked from a single direction.

Whether that's an individual pugilist facing three opponents, one in front, one coming from the side, one coming from the rear.

Whether that's a platoon being pinned from the front and being assaulted by the flanks.

Whether it's a divisional spearhead on a breakthrough now being counterattacked from the east and the west simultaneously.

Whether it's a corps-sized salient that first faces a feint attack upon its centre, then receives assaults on both its shoulders.

Whether it's Germany having to fight a two front war.

At every scale, the general rule is that having to defend from several directions at once is less preferable to having to defend a single direction only. Only in very specific '360' fortress/hedgehog situations does this change, it seems to me.

I really fail to see why this is controversial?

From a WitE point of view, all you need is an abstraction along the lines of +10% to attacker CV for each hexside above 2 from which the attack is directed, modified by leader rolls, or something similar (off the top of my head).

Anyone play the peerless SSG Decisive Battles games (perhaps the best IGOUGO operational computer wargame system ever)? The concept of attacking from different hexsides was central to their combat system (yes, different scale, but see list of examples above)

[Mehring]

Your view is one sided and therefore incomplete. There are innumerable instances where attacks from multiple directions turned out to be a disadvantage, hence such terms as "dispersal of effort," where the central position of a defender proved to be an advantage, enabling them to choose the time and place to deal with each threat in turn. Take the Russian Civil War and the central position of the Red Army. Again, the advantage, or not, of attacks from multiple directions, is conditional.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: squatter

...

I really fail to see why this is controversial?

...

the idea that attacks from multiple directions can add to the problems for the defender is not controversial.

The specific is how to implement that in the game. A lot of games have this concept but it was built in from the start and the game has been developed and balanced around that feature. So the various iterations of the Decisive Campaigns (& Shadow Empire) all reward it - indeed its pretty much essential if you really want to make progress.

To make a significant change to the WiTx combat engine is a really demanding choice. As I mentioned above, even reweighting losses from the retreat result (as in WiTE1 and WiTW) to combat took a real time commitment, both to code and then rebalance around it.

practically chucking bonuses onto the cv (final or initial) can lead to very odd game play outcomes.

[squatter]

the idea that attacks from multiple directions can add to the problems for the defender is not controversial.

So you don't agree that your sentence would be made more accurate by replacing 'can add' with 'in most cases add'?

Genuine question because I'm still surprised how contentious this seems to be. Perhaps I'm in an army of one on this issue.

Obviously the coding involved is a separate issue upon which I can't comment.