combat demystified

[Treefrog]

Foreword.

In my youth, Avalon Hill's 1958 classic Tactics II had a simple combat system. To "commit" your troops you moved into the enemy's zone of control. All units were worth "1" except armor that was worth "2". You were doubled if defending behind a river, on a beach, behind a bridge, or on high terrain. You calculated the odds, rounded down, rolled a single die and looked it up on a matrix (die roll on the vertical axis, odds on horizontal axis). Results were either somebody died, both died, or somebody retreated. I was young then, with an agile mind. You could calculate the exact chance of any outcome; wargaming was a science. The combat system taught me the laws of independent chance (helpful if playing roulette or craps I might add).

Now I am old, my mind less agile, and I am confronted with the rather obtuse combat system in GGWBTS. Although I have certainly not mastered the system, as my contribution to your enjoyment, let me offer this brief guide.

Preliminarily, allow me to suggest, dear reader, that you accept the fact that without the algebraic formulas necessary to calculate (add, subtract, multiply, divide, mash, dice, and grate) all the factors used in combat resolution you will never, ever be able to replicate the specificity of likelihood of results available to Tactics II players in 1958. Count this a blessing. If you knew the formulas and actually used them your level of enjoyment would be roughly equilavent to filling out an income tax return with all schedules; the game would seem more like a job than a joy.

My suggestion is accept that wargaming in GGWBTS is an art, not a science. Let intuition be your guide. Have fun.
********************************

Land combat in GGWBTS has three components after movement: commitment, tactical combat resolution, and victory determination.

Commitment is discussed in section 10.1.2, pages 111 through 113. "Commitment" is a new concept to most boardgamers/computergamers, although a common feature of table top wargaming. The specific formula is not given. The main factors are described without relative weights being provided. Be intuitive. Assume your prejudices are correct until empirical proof suggests otherwise.

To participate in tactical combat resolution (rolling dice to hit people) attackers and/or defenders must be "committed". Sounds like some other dynamic I can think of but won't go into now.

1. The first positive factor listed (and thus presumably the most important) is the AC that provided initiative to the unit's commander is in the same region as the battle.

Other factors that will increase chance of commitment include:

2. TC with initiative linked to unit's commander.

3. If your side outnumbers the enemy(reverse if you are outnumbered).

4. A high command rating.

5. A high attack rating (for attacker; defense rating for defender).

6. Unused movement points.

7. Population and regional fortifications (presumably for defender).

Negative factors that decrease chance of commitment include:

8. Militia and mounted troops.

9. Forest, mountain or swamp terrain.

Tactical Combat Resolution is discussed in section 10.1.3 (called combat execution) at pages 114 through 116. Old time table top wargamers will remember throwing lots of dice in combat resolution (known in the hobby as "buckets of dice"). That is exactly what happens here. All those units are lining up and throwing dice to kill each other.

Section 5.0 describes the number of dice each unit rolls (fewer dice if defender is armored).

The total of all the die rolls is modified to a maximum +6 or -6 according to the factors listed at pages 114-115. Note that big modifiers include being unsupplied, taking fire previously and cover such as entrenchment and forts. Like I said, this is intuitive stuff but in this case it reflects the speciific prejudices of the designer.

The net result is compared to the defense value (again at section 5.0 and on the bar at the top of the map screen). In addition to regular "hits", the non infantry, non militia types are subject to a small chance of a critical hit (page 115), which I presume are caissons blowing up or the horses running away. If none of the above, if the attacker's net die total is at least 10% of the defense value, the defender suffers attrition in increments of 10%.

Victory determination is described in section 10.1.4 at page 118.

This is the simplest calculus.

1. The combat value (section 5.0) is halved if the unit is damaged or unsupplied (see how often supply factors in).

2. The commander's attack or defense rating is added (as appropriate).

3. Combat value is multiplied for entrenchments; forts add 10 or 40 to the combat value, doubled for heavy artillery.

4. There is an undisclosed adjustment for AC or TC


Postscript.

Feel free to savagely but constructively criticize anything I stated incorrectly.

Consider that more than 600,000 Americans died during the ACW. Such a war fought today with our present population and casualties in the same proportion would produce roughly 5,000,000 dead Americans. Clearly those folks were committed.

Starting in 1866 communities spontaneously honored their dead. From that people's movement came the holiday we know as Memorial Day. Honor the memory of those that sacrificed everything in defense of their country. Offer a prayer tonight for our young people that curently risk everything for the defense of our country.

[JAMiAM]

Hi Treefrog. That's a good synopsis. You might want to add in the fact that the combat attrition drm will be an exception to the +6 maximum. Otherwise, nothing seemed to jump out at me that needs changing.

[willgamer]

Excellent summary! [&o]


A few minor questions/points-

2. TC with initiative linked to unit's commander.

This is from p.112, par. 2. This seems to conflict with par. 1 which states that temporary ACs will not be eligible for committment benefits. [&:]

The total of all the die rolls is modified to a maximum +6 or -6 according to the factors listed at pages 114-115.

I believe it's worth explicitly mentioning that this is where the commander's speciality skill rating comes into play, regardless of the commander's speciality type. [:D]

3. Combat value is multiplied for entrenchments; forts add 10 or 40 to the combat value, doubled for heavy artillery.

Pretty sure it's add die(10) and die(40)... makes a difference...[:'(]


-----
It may be useful to add a summary section of reasonable inferences, e.g.-

1. The single biggest edge you can usually effect is to include your AC in the battle.

2. A commanders attack or defense rating, as appropriate, plus the speciality skill rating are both important.

3. Think about whether you really want to entrench; if entrenched units are attacked, it may prevent them from retreating to avoid destruction.

[tran505]

Wow. Tactics 2 even predates me. I got started with "Blitzkrieg!"and "Panzerblitz". Those were the days!

I try not to worry too much about the details of combat, but I have wondered why sometimes when firing units inflict a hit, that the army morale gets worse. Not all the time, but often enough for me to know I don't understand something.

Thx...

P

[dakjck]

Ahhhh.  Remeber the Koufax Desert?

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: dakjck

Ahhhh.  Remeber the Koufax Desert?

I do, actually! Very Sandy as I recall.

[WarHunter]

Treefrog, i commend you for the time spent to put your post together. As players begin to understand the game more, your post will help other see the combat system more clearly. I don't pretend to understand all the math, but i do like the battle screen where all those "virtual dice", are shown.
 
Avalon Hill games bring back good memories. My 1st was Midway, followed by Kriegspiel and Afrika Korps. [8D]

[Grotius]

My first Avalon Hill game was "Gettysburg." I played the heck out of that game against a friend of mine; we were both around 11 years old. We'd take turns at each side, and even at age 11, with pretty simple rules, we were guilty of a bit of rules-lawyering. Man, it was fun.

Oddly enough, that was the last time I was really hooked on a Civil War game for decades. I went on to "D-Day," "Kriegspiel," "Wooden Ships & Iron Men", and dozens of A/H games, all the way through "Third Reich", SL, and the king of kings, ASL. I used to beg my parents for A/H games every birthday until I went off to college.

I didn't really return to the Civil War until the past year or so, when FoF, AACW, and now WBTS appeared. Go figure: a decades-long hiatus, and then three games in a row.

[tran505]

I only played the original AH "Gettysburg" once. The game ended when the last remaining Confederate unit and the last remaining Union unit fought on top of Cemetary Hill, and I rolled and "exchange" result on the CRT. The game ended with an empty map! Somehow seemed appropriate at the time....

- P

[stuman]

I saw the mention of the AH games and just had to comment. I was given D-Day as a Christmas present many , many years ago ( the Vietnam War was still in full swing ) and and my brother and I went on to collect dozens of the old board games, and we still have every single one of them ! Anyway I now own many of the Matrix titles, and have just started my first campaign in this one. All of your suggestions and obsevations have helped. Thanks.

[JAMiAM]

Welcome to the boards, stuman. Another gamer delurked...[;)]

[wdboyd]

Salutations,
 
Yes, Avalon Hill games bring back good memories.  Avalon Hill's Tactics II was my first. Then came Afrika Korps.
 
I personally have a soft spot for Afrika Korps. I am undefeated in by-mail games. Albeit I only played two such Afrika Korps games. Remember having to check the newspaper to obtain ones die rolls?
 
I then graduated to Blitzkrieg, Panzerblitz and PanzerLeader. Those were indeed the days! Things surely have changed.