Matrix Games Forums

"So you don't agree that your sentence would be made more accurate by replacing 'can add' with 'in most cases add'?"
More accurate would be difficult to determine. To demonstrate the one sidedness of your argument, you quote Germany's two front dilemma. Has it escaped your attention that the Commonwealth and USA both dealt with a two front war, or more, depending on how you determine a "front" yet they defeated the Axis. The advantage or disadvantage conferred by fighting multiple fronts, like everything else in the world, is conditional upon concrete circumstances, that is, its relationship to the whole situation.

If we are to take the "flanked" 10 mile hex, it abstracts all manner of combat situations, some advantageous to the attacker, others not. The ability to exploit or thwart an advantage or to make an advantage will be determined by other factors, such as leadership, organisation and mobility. All these are represented in game.

I think people are missing the point of the scale of the game. Even if you attack from multiple hexes, the single combat resolution is actually abstracting multiple battles along many miles laterally. Most of those battles which from a tactical perspective might not even utilize flanking but represent linear battles. Flanking is a tactical maneuver well below the scale of the game. Even though physically the counters look like they are flanking an enemy counter, that doesn't mean tactical flanking is actually happening.

Now, could you argue you get a bonus for representation of tactical maneuver warfare or multiple echelons attempting a tactical breakout? Maybe. But to what degree is a matter of interpretation. I'd prefer they leave tactical concepts out of the game at this scale and rather abstract them.

The scale of and era of this game is best suited to focus on the German maneuver warfare and the Soviet deep battle operations and I think the game does it well. Honestly, I think the game focuses too much on the TOE and low level combat calculations and details. I get it maybe makes a more interesting sim, but at the end of the day you're just getting back to CV modifiers like a regular boardgame, anyways, and it's a lot of work for what ends up being more or less no different than a boardgame with a divisional counter with a flat single combat strength.

With that being, I think the argument misses the point because this game shouldn't even be focused on tactical issues, they should be entirely abstracted. And since flanking is entirely a tactical concept, it's not even relevant.

I agree that flanking is less relevant on this scale when we are talking about a tactical battle or a series of battles over several days. There is still the issue of having to defend in multiple directions and thereby unable to put the whole afford against one enemy attack direction. Well, one could argue that that sort of details is build into the system already, and part of the tactical battle that the AI handles. Maybe it is sufficiently done so.

The other thing is is the prepared positions or fortifications. They can't just be moved around and wont help the defenders (except against shelling) if having to face a new direction even partly. In those situations some disadvantage might well be realistic to put on the defenders. Like reducing the fortification level if attacked in the flank or rear. But how to define the flank or rear is likely not possible to program into this game engine.

A strategic hex game I once played with about the same ground scale had facing directions added, with % reduction of SP if attacked on the front flank and more on the side and rear flank. Such an approach would of course add a lot more time spend on moving the units when having to considering the facing when the unit end its move.

Directional fortifications would be excellent if they could be implemented.

To demonstrate the one sidedness of your argument, you quote Germany's two front dilemma. Has it escaped your attention that the Commonwealth and USA both dealt with a two front war, or more, depending on how you determine a "front" yet they defeated the Axis. The advantage or disadvantage conferred by fighting multiple fronts, like everything else in the world, is conditional upon concrete circumstances, that is, its relationship to the whole situation.

Ok - so while picking the most extreme example of my 'maxim' might not be the most instructive when comparing to WitE, I think the principle still holds so why not...

Is it not the case that on the strategic level of WW2, in essence the existence of more than one front only ever benefits the side on the offensive? The side which is on the defensive would always prefer less rather than more fronts?

So I suggest my 'more available avenues of attack always advantages the attacker, and less available avenues of attack always advantages the defender' still holds

With that being, I think the argument misses the point because this game shouldn't even be focused on tactical issues, they should be entirely abstracted. And since flanking is entirely a tactical concept, it's not even relevant.

I beg to differ that by fixating on the tactical notion of flanking, perhaps you are missing the point.

We are not talking about tactical flanking. Indeed, forget the word 'flanking'. Think instead of 'avenues of attack'.

In reality, having more possible avenues of attack always disadvantages the defender. The defender would always prefer fewer possible avenues of attack to deploy against. The chokepoint of the mountain pass for example.

This fundamental reality is not modelled in the game. In the combat ending the game attempts to model everything from command penalties of units from different HQs working together, down to the last individual rifle being fired, but misses the fundamental concept of flanking/avenues of attack/whatever you want to call it.

At the scale of WitE with a 10km hex, units which have to defend multiple hex-fronts are treated as being in just as strong a defensive position as those that have only a single or double hex front to defend.

A division placed in a line with friendly units left and right, which can only be attacked across a single hex side is treated as being as being of the same defensive strength as that of a division in a salient where the enemy is present on four hex sides.

It seems self evident to me that the division exposed on four sides is going to find it far harder time holding its hex than the one with only a single avenue of attack.

I find it really surprising this concept is controversial tbh. In a perfect world for me the game would reflect fortification facings, and some kind of defensive malus for facing multiple avenues of attack. But the game works fine in the absence of this, and by the sounds of it coding issues are going to preclude its inclusion.

But if anyone seriously wants to argue about the principle that a division attacked from all points of the compass is not disadvantaged compared to the same division being attacked from just one direction, then I give up.

As I said, does this not stand?:

Attackers always prefer more possible avenues of attack

Defenders always prefer fewer possible avenues of attack

ORIGINAL: squatter

It seems self evident to me that the division exposed on four sides is going to find it far harder time holding its hex than the one with only a single avenue of attack.

I find it really surprising this concept is controversial tbh. In a perfect world for me the game would reflect fortification facings, and some kind of defensive malus for facing multiple avenues of attack. But the game works fine in the absence of this, and by the sounds of it coding issues are going to preclude its inclusion.

But if anyone seriously wants to argue about the principle that a division attacked from all points of the compass is not disadvantaged compared to the same division being attacked from just one direction, then I give up.

As I said, does this not stand?:

Attackers always prefer more possible avenues of attack

Defenders always prefer fewer possible avenues of attack

+++1

It seems so obvious that I don't understand the adverse positions ...

and indeed Loki too said :

ORIGINAL: loki100

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.

ORIGINAL: squatter

So I suggest my 'more available avenues of attack always advantages the attacker, and less available avenues of attack always advantages the defender' still holds

This encapsulates your thinking in terms of rigid "ideal norms" which are seldom found in concrete reality. By this token, you assumed earlier that numerous attacks are made simultaneously. If you're unable to grasp the unreality of your argument theoretically, you might want to try Panther Games' "Command Ops" on full orders delay settings. You will then see that the disruption or successful coordination of attacks are questions not just of deployment, but skill, organisation, mobility, and other factors, not to mention a degree of luck.

There is no advantage innate to any situation, only situations in their living context. Take Arnie as an actor, an example I've used in the same argument before. His skills as an actor are at a base level, yet perfect for playing cybernetic organisms. Similarly, and as Trotsky once wrote of Hitler's "Sentimental formlessness, absence of disciplined thought ignorance along with gaudy erudition," in Hitler's specific political context, "all these minuses turned into pluses."

The argument of "ideal norms" is again found in the context of competing tank models. Everyone "knows" the panther was the best medium tank of WW2, except that it being so was entirely contextual. In a narrow village street? Not with a gun too long to traverse. At close quarters? Engine assisted turret traverse was difficult to use. One could go on.

The attempt to fit reality into "ideal norms" is to fit reality into a prejudice. It doesn't work because the real world always works out a bit different. At the operational level of WitE2, the numerous variables and unknowns add up to plausibly reflect real life possibilities. It could be improved and fortification value by hexside is an improvement I'd support. But not innate advantages from so called "flanking" attacks.

this is an interesting and valid discussion. But keep it polite and respectful?

Yes, being hit in the flank hurts, yes that is hard to conceptualise at the game scale, yes its hard to actually pull off, and yes, it would be very hard to code and balance.

Since we can all agree on that (I assume), this is not about being right or wrong