Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management

[MrLongleg]

I think everybody agrees that feeding reinforcements to your units can become quite tedious, especially if you have hundreds of counters on the map. Somebody already proposed a TOE (table of equipment) system, which would also allow to automate this process.

Here is the idea. Users can create formation templates, e.g.

Infantry div:

40 Rifle
3 Machinegun
3 Mortars
1 AT GUN
1 horse

Or Armored Div

2 Light tank
1 Medium tank
10 Rifle

etc.

It should be possible to update/modify those templates later anytime, e.g. change the number of sf's or change the type (from rifle to rifle II etc)

If a new unit is created the user can decide to use template (it is not a must, just an option)

The unit is created and will immediately request its sub-formations from its HQ. The HQ honors the request, but the unit may only get filled partially, depending of availability of sub-formations in the HQ.

Now a unit with a template can have three modes:

- refit (high priority reinforcement)
- auto reinforce (lower priority reinforcements - default)
- don't reinforce (don't send reinforcements)

In the supply phase each unit calculates the number of missing sub-formations compared to its template

Then all units in refit send their request to the HQ. For each sub-formation now units are transferred from the HQ if the HQ has the transport cap to reach the formation or the sub-formation can reach it with its own power. For each sub-formation, first the units with the biggest gap gets one - and so on in a round robin way.

Then the same algorithm is executed for the 'auto-reinforce' units.

At the end there probably will be a gap between the requests and the available units, which should translate into requests to the next higher HQ, which again will distribute units in the same way according to the priority settings of the HQ.

A sub-formation can only travel from one HQ link to the next per turn.

At the end there might still be a gap on each HQ and it should be possible to request automatic production adjustment for this HQ. In the production screen it should be possible to see how much of the production is needed to fulfill those reinforcement requests.

Another thing that needs to be revisited is the readiness loss when transferring sub-formation between HQ's. I think a new sub-formation should always start with a readiness of 75 (and low experience, like modeled correctly in the game) which would not be affected by transfer between HQ.

Another thing I'd like to see changed is the big readiness drop when you change the HQ of a formation. I don't really think that this is justified. It would be better to model that with the expenditure of PP's proportional to the power-points of the sub-formation.

Those changes would improve the game a great deal and relieve the player from a lot of un-neccessary micro management. Since it could be included in the supply distribution it should not be too difficult to implement.

Anyway - I think this is already a great game and I enjoy it (as PBEM, a little less against the AI)

Feedback is welcome

[Arditi]

    Hi Haudrauf,
I don't believe that it is tedious and I think that it would severely maul the game and it's uniqueness if the reinforcement were made automatic and if there was a fixed TOE.  There is a certain art to making up your own units, for certain situations,  that I enjoy.  I respect your opinion, but I hope it does not come to pass.  Perhaps as an option only?
  Respectfully, Arditi[:)]

[SSFSX17]

I strongly support this system. Of course it would not be mandatory: players can always choose to simply not define any standard units, thus no automatic unit creation or reinforcement.

[Casus_Belli]

I also strongly support this idea , even though I don't know how hard it would be to implement.

Haudrau did say "(it is not a must, just an option)" and perhaps the default setting could be 'don't reinforce' (should be 'replacements' rather than 'reinforcements' - just like it should be 'strategic operations' not 'tactics', but anyway...). There's nothing to stop players from micromanaging their units if that's what they want to do. Anyway, players can make their own templates; this would be essential, as I would not use anything like the ones sggested here.

[DakaSha]

ORIGINAL: Arditi

    Hi Haudrauf,
I don't believe that it is tedious and I think that it would severely maul the game and it's uniqueness if the reinforcement were made automatic and if there was a fixed TOE.  There is a certain art to making up your own units, for certain situations,  that I enjoy.  I respect your opinion, but I hope it does not come to pass.  Perhaps as an option only?
Respectfully, Arditi[:)]

I don't understand how the proposal changes anything other then making stuff less tedius. you are still designing your own units

[jomni]

+1.  The manual reinforcement is my biggest problem with the game. I can't play the game for a very long time because it becomes very tiring.

[tweber]

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

I think everybody agrees that feeding reinforcements to your units can become quite tedious, especially if you have hundreds of counters on the map. Somebody already proposed a TOE (table of equipment) system, which would also allow to automate this process.

Here is the idea. Users can create formation templates, e.g.

Infantry div:

40 Rifle
3 Machinegun
3 Mortars
1 AT GUN
1 horse

Or Armored Div

2 Light tank
1 Medium tank
10 Rifle

etc.

The easiest way to do this is to define a few new SF Types. The first could be "Infantry division unit" and represent 1 part rifle, 3/40th parts MG, 3/40th parts Mortar, 1/40th part AT Gun and 1/40th part horse. In reality, this would be a rifle that is slightly more expensive, slightly better on the attack and slightly better on the defense.

You could do the same think for the tank mix you decribe. It would be a light medium tank though more light than medium.

I think the actual difference between these blended units and the original units is pretty slight. If you are trying to always maintain the mixes you are describing, you are doing it more for aesthetics than for combat effectiveness. It would be even simplier to replace the above mixes with:

60 Rifle

and

4 Light Tank

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: tweber
The easiest way to do this is to define a few new SF Types. The first could be "Infantry division unit" and represent 1 part rifle, 3/40th parts MG, 3/40th parts Mortar, 1/40th part AT Gun and 1/40th part horse. In reality, this would be a rifle that is slightly more expensive, slightly better on the attack and slightly better on the defense.

You could do the same think for the tank mix you decribe. It would be a light medium tank though more light than medium.

I think the actual difference between these blended units and the original units is pretty slight. If you are trying to always maintain the mixes you are describing, you are doing it more for aesthetics than for combat effectiveness. It would be even simplier to replace the above mixes with:

60 Rifle

and

4 Light Tank

I fully agree, and is something I have planned to do with my scens (once I get that far).

Scaling would be so that 1 rifle would represent a divisional slice of 100 men, and 1 tank would represent 10 of them (scaled down obviously).

[Josh]

I don't know about a template.... I mean it *can*, it *might* be usefull in very large scenarios... on the other hand many units I create are different than my fighting core units. Say 20 rifles here, maybe two Machineguns and Mortars attached, one or two Armoured cars for defensive purposes only. Maybe half, probably even less, of my units are fully equiped. The rest is substandard, defending a shoreline, oilwells, cities.
So yes while I agree that manually reinforcing/creating new core units can be a bit tedious sometimes, I wouldn't want it to be fully automatized because of the many different units I create. As an optional rule... maybe, but I bet that would be a lot of work for Vic to implement. Say you have an unit you would like to be automatically reinforced, only this unit is under a different HQ and on an island hopping affair somewhere far away across the ocean... how would the program handle this?
 
One thing is certain though, this manual creating/reinforcing is only for those who enjoy a hardcore wargame. If the user interface could be overhauled, while maintaining the AT feel, maybe made a bit more automated with the help of user created unittemplates, then maybe it would draw the attention of a larger playergroup. More streamlined I say, not made simpler.
But in the end it all seems a lot of work to me to implement this all... and I'm not even sure the game will get better in the end... [&:]

[MrLongleg]

ORIGINAL: Arditi

    Hi Haudrauf,
I don't believe that it is tedious and I think that it would severely maul the game and it's uniqueness if the reinforcement were made automatic and if there was a fixed TOE.  There is a certain art to making up your own units, for certain situations,  that I enjoy.  I respect your opinion, but I hope it does not come to pass.  Perhaps as an option only?
Respectfully, Arditi[:)]

Since the usage of templates is completely optional it would not affect you at all, if you prefer not to use them...

[tweber]

I was playing around with this mix for an infantry division:

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

Here is the idea. Users can create formation templates, e.g.

Infantry div:

40 Rifle
3 Machinegun
3 Mortars
1 AT GUN
1 horse

Here is how it would compare to a group of 75 Rifle:

Cost - same
Number of attacks - 69 vs 75
Total hits it can take - 4,850 vs 7,500
Total attack power vs infantry - 1,190 vs 975
Total defense power vs infantry - 2900 vs 1950

If you defined a "Standard Infantry Division Unit" to be equivalent to your mix above, you would want to have:

- 69 per division
- Cost of 101 in production points
- 1 attack
- Attack power vs infantry of 17 and a defense power vs infantry of 42

I did not bother to figure out the numbers vs armor. There is also other things to consider like supply efficiency and raw efficiency. However from a performance vs pure Rifle, this mix does look to be better, especially on the defense.

[MrLongleg]

ORIGINAL: tweber

I was playing around with this mix for an infantry division:

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

Here is the idea. Users can create formation templates, e.g.

Infantry div:

40 Rifle
3 Machinegun
3 Mortars
1 AT GUN
1 horse

Here is how it would compare to a group of 75 Rifle:

Cost - same
Number of attacks - 69 vs 75
Total hits it can take - 4,850 vs 7,500
Total attack power vs infantry - 1,190 vs 975
Total defense power vs infantry - 2900 vs 1950

If you defined a "Standard Infantry Division Unit" to be equivalent to your mix above, you would want to have:

- 69 per division
- Cost of 101 in production points
- 1 attack
- Attack power vs infantry of 17 and a defense power vs infantry of 42

I did not bother to figure out the numbers vs armor. There is also other things to consider like supply efficiency and raw efficiency. However from a performance vs pure Rifle, this mix does look to be better, especially on the defense.

Just to clarify one thing - the mix I used in my example was just an example. In no way I tried to say that tis is how an infantry division should look like. The idea is that you can create an arbitrary number of templates and give them arbitrary names. So you could have "Mobile Infantry", "Attack Infantry" etc, each with their own player defined mix of units. Of course every player would probably have slightly different ideas about the right mix of sub-formations.

[tweber]

Your mix is pretty decent for infantry divisions. 
 
The point is that you could define these new units and you would now have the ratios of TOE enforced.  It is easy to do for any arbitrary grouping of units.  All you need is a little familiarity with modding and you can do this with the current game.

[MrLongleg]

ORIGINAL: tweber

Your mix is pretty decent for infantry divisions. 

The point is that you could define these new units and you would now have the ratios of TOE enforced.  It is easy to do for any arbitrary grouping of units.  All you need is a little familiarity with modding and you can do this with the current game.

Yes, that would be doable by modding - but this is not very convenient, especially if you mostly do PBEM. For every new template I want to have I would have to startup the editor.

[SSFSX17]

ORIGINAL: tweber
The point is that you could define these new units and you would now have the ratios of TOE enforced.  It is easy to do for any arbitrary grouping of units.  All you need is a little familiarity with modding and you can do this with the current game.

The key is to be able to auto-reinforce / auto-fill units after a game has begun, and without needing action cards or scripting.

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962
Another thing I'd like to see changed is the big readiness drop when you change the HQ of a formation. I don't really think that this is justified. It would be better to model that with the expenditure of PP's proportional to the power-points of the sub-formation.

Great post, I might have other comments, but just want to quickly comment that I totally agree with this...the readiness drop for change of HQ is way, way too high. There just shouldn't be that big of a penalty...I don't know anything about the historical aspects of this (I could be wrong, maybe it's justified historically), but for game playing it doesn't make sense...I shouldn't be penalize because I want to organize troops under a certain command, even it's temporary...

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: SSFSX17

I strongly support this system. Of course it would not be mandatory: players can always choose to simply not define any standard units, thus no automatic unit creation or reinforcement.

It seems that every time this comes up, the first reaction is "But I like the way it is now..", etc. No one is suggesting that the templates would be mandatory; the beauty of AT is its flexibility...the templates would be a tool for those people who want a certain uniformity to their units, and would like the computer to take over the often mundane task of reinforcing every unit to a certain level.

This is not a statement against those who like to micromanage!

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: tweber

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

I think everybody agrees that feeding reinforcements to your units can become quite tedious, especially if you have hundreds of counters on the map. Somebody already proposed a TOE (table of equipment) system, which would also allow to automate this process.

Here is the idea. Users can create formation templates, e.g.

Infantry div:

40 Rifle
3 Machinegun
3 Mortars
1 AT GUN
1 horse

Or Armored Div

2 Light tank
1 Medium tank
10 Rifle

etc.

The easiest way to do this is to define a few new SF Types. The first could be "Infantry division unit" and represent 1 part rifle, 3/40th parts MG, 3/40th parts Mortar, 1/40th part AT Gun and 1/40th part horse. In reality, this would be a rifle that is slightly more expensive, slightly better on the attack and slightly better on the defense.

You could do the same think for the tank mix you decribe. It would be a light medium tank though more light than medium.

I think the actual difference between these blended units and the original units is pretty slight. If you are trying to always maintain the mixes you are describing, you are doing it more for aesthetics than for combat effectiveness. It would be even simplier to replace the above mixes with:

60 Rifle

and

4 Light Tank

With all due respect tweber, this missed one of the main points...the point of the template isn't ONLY to have an interesting mix of units (and I agree that alot of this is about aesthetics)...the point is to have a set number so that the computer could instantly do the replacements. If I have a set template of 40 Rifle = a division, I want the computer to find my divisions and send replacements up to 40 Rifle...I don't want to check all my units, see which ones need replacing, etc., etc....I want the computer to do it. This is true for units with only 1 SFType and units 8 SFTypes...

[TPM]

Just to clarify one thing - the mix I used in my example was just an example. In no way I tried to say that tis is how an infantry division should look like. The idea is that you can create an arbitrary number of templates and give them arbitrary names. So you could have "Mobile Infantry", "Attack Infantry" etc, each with their own player defined mix of units. Of course every player would probably have slightly different ideas about the right mix of sub-formations.

I was going to point this out...this thread isn't about unit composition, etc. I want this system even if one of my templates is as simple as Infantry Divsion = 20 Rifle. If I have 15 of these in the line, and I know for certain that I want to send replacements to all of them, right off the bat, I want to click a button and have it done. Then, if I want to add other units to specific ones, I could do it...

The only obstacle for this system is how hard it would be to program, etc. It would DO NOTHING to ruin the flow of the game, or the elegant simplicity that is this game. You could totally ignore it...

[Great_Ajax]

I would also like to add that it would also be nice when you select your templated unit to build, that the game would automatically use your naming provisions numerically. So, if I created three templates for units and we'll call them "Infantry Division", "Armored Division", and "Cavalry Division." When I click on the add new formation, the game gives me the option to create one of three templates that I created. The game then automatically renames them using my templates name. If I create a new armored division from my template, it automatically names the unit "x Armored Division".

These templates should be completely optional and players could fully ignore them if they choose.

Trey