A Model for Hybrid Tactical Combat

[Ajantaka]

What I mean by Hybrid Tactical Combat (HTC) is somethings in between computer auto resolve and tactical in detail. HTC is auto resolve but also gives the player imput into the battle before and during combat. The following is only a suggestion; its can be adapted in many ways. For all I know some other games already have it. However.
Before combat begins a schematic with boxes for left wing, center, right wing and center is offered the player and he is allowed to place his units one by one into these. And the player is offered a list of possible Battle Plans. The interaction of formation, battle plans of both sides, and individual unit qualities and commander qualities are the data the ai will use to determine outcome (and of course an element of chance).
The following is an example. We have an army of 14 units with a 'hero' or general. We are going to use the Battle Plan 'Defend/Counter Attack', that is we will leave the initiative to attack to the opponent at first and, after we have defeated one or more attacks, will counter attack. We place 3 units each in left wing, center, and right wing. Scounting functions can be included so that we have partial knowledge of the enemy formation. Or not. Since we don't know where the enemy will make their attack and because we will need fresh troops for our own counter-attack, we place a larger reserve of 5 units. We also place our general, who will influence directly whichever wing of the army we put him with. Then we click for the battle to begin.
We are given a running total of casualties of both sides, which is approximate only, during course of combat. We are informed that the enemy has launched an attack in force on our left wing but our side is fighting hard and holding. We note that the casualties of both sides are starting to rise.
Another message arrives that tells us our left wing is being forced back. We have a button to press if, any time during the battle, we wish to commit reserves. For the present we await further developements. Another ms. comes in telling us that the left wing is in danger of breaking. So we can wait no longer and decide to send help. There are 5 units in the Reserve and we must decide how many to send. If our left wing is routed we may well have lost the battle and we sure won't be able to launch a counter attack but we don't want to commit more troops than are necessary to repulse the enemy so that we do have options left. We decide to send 2 units. A while after they are inserted into the fight a ms. comes that tells us the situation has been restored and the enemy repulsed. We are asked if we want to counter attack now but we choose to wait and let the enemy use up more of their reserves and energy.
Another attack comes, this time aimed at our right wing. Though the casualties rise steeply on both sides, after a time a ms. informs us that the enemy has been repulsed. Now we are ready for our counter attack and we launch it with our center and the 3 units left in our reserve. If we have read the battle correctly we will break the enemy center, if not we will be repulsed in our turn and the fight may turn out to be a draw. If we do break the center and this proves to be decisive we are offered a list of how aggressively we want to purse the beaten enemy army. The battle is over and we are then given an accurate count of the casualties.
Now, this model can be made less intensive by allowing the formation and battle plan aspects of it but then no further imput by player. But the point is that those of us who do not want to play out the battle in move by move detail would really like something more than a single mouse click and we are told the result of the fight. And surely, all I have suggested is very easy for today's computers. The model could be made more complicated rather than less. I have never understood why games that offer auto resolve have not always had something like this. For what it is worth, there is my suggested Model.

Thanks

[wodin]

Dominions series has a great battle mechanic..you give orders and set formation pre battle..then watch it unfold..loads of excitement and tension but also pretty hands off (Kind of like the Football manager games;)).

[Ajantaka]

Thanks, I did not know that; I don't get around enough to have a wide knowledge of what has already been done. But you prove my point. Since this kind of tactical combat has been done, since it is so easy to have it in a game, why don't all developers of strategy games that also include a detailed tactical move by move fighting of a battle also include this kind of hybrid tactical combat? Unknown. Game makers do or don't do certain things for which you can rarely get a logical explanation. We can only hope that this sort of combat becomes a standard option in future strategy games.

[TheGrayMouser]

Why don't they all have it? Heres my guess:

Ist a grand strategy game that allows purchases of various unit types, leaders, production/cost of said units has "tactics" built in , even if the battle is auto resolved as the player is making the choices of when to attack how many troops, terrain etc to consider. Even a auto resolve no doudt takes a lot of programming and behind the scenes logic so that the auto resolve correlates with a logical and expected outcome to the strategic game(with of course some random thrown in) Probably very difficult to balance. To add another layer of battle resolution exponentially increases the balancing as now you need to not only correlate the outcome from battle resolution #1 to the strategy game, and battle res #2 to the strategy game BUT also correlate between the two battle systems. They have to be consistent. It would be a bad game where using auto resolve an army of tanks(or warg cavalry) ALWAYS loses in rough terrain but if using #2 you can always win. etc etc If it isn't then players will always use one over the other.

BTW, COG EE has 4!!! tactical battle resolutions for its strategic game: auto resolve, abstract grid system with some player input, tactical battles on a hex map at division level, and tac battles at the brigade level.

Heres the problem, on that forum someone asked the developer if any new games using the engine would be forthcoming and the answer, sadly, was no... They LOST money on the game. So an amazingly deep open ended grand strategy game with diplomacy, multiple types of detailed land and naval tac battles, deep economic model, realsitic logistical concerns(almost never modeled properly) and a relatively poplar wargaming genre (napoleonics) commercially failed despite providing almost everything one could ask for!

[Breca]

Ajantaka's hybrid system looks like a fun system, and I could see it playing out well in a strategy game. And Gray Mouser is spot on in his observations.

We're already virtually offering two separate games for the price of one: a grand strategy game and a tactical game. A wiser man might have aimed a little lower...

Good Hunting!

Breca

[Ajantaka]

Gray Mouser,

Thanks for the explanation. My knowledge of computers and programs is tiny so I often ask developers for things that sound easy to me but are in fact difficult for them to do. Perhaps though we could be given some kind of progress report of the autoresolve battle while it is being fought? This would increase the tension and interest of the situation without the player interfering directly in the tactical battle.

It is too bad that the game you mention was not successful but the reason some games sell well and others don't has always seemed aribrary as hell to me. Games that get excellent reviews and are liked by many experienced players fail and games that seem to be far less succeed. To me the continued giant success of the Civ games is baffling. Each game is a rearrangement of the deck furniture and when there is something new it is usually taken from another game. Oh well, there is no accounting for taste; it takes all kinds to make a universe.

Again, thanks for the explanation. I have asked this question before on different forums and yours is the first reply that I could understand.

[Breca]

Tactical hex-style battles are triggered for Stacks led by Heroes (which function as "generals" of an army) and during Capitol defenses. Only a few of your Stacks will be led by Heroes.

The remainder of battles are resolved in a 3-phase Auto-battle system: Skirmish, Assault and General Melee. At each juncture, units may be damaged, and the player has the decision of whether to stay in the battle or retreat. It's a bit like staying or folding in a card game. So while we don't have concepts of faltering wings and such, the player still can still monitor the ebb and flow of battle, and decide when to pull out, before taking unacceptable losses.

Skirmish Phase: Ranged Units fire volleys at the enemy
Assault Phase: The first infantry units engage in melee.
General Melee: All units become embroiled in a general melee. Infantry tries to protect more vulnerable units, if they are not otherwise engaged. Excess Infantry swarm more vulnerable rear line units. Cavalry charges engaged units to devastating effect.

The first two phases favor qualitatively superior armies and ranged units. The final phase favors quantitatively superior armies and melee units. This means that a skirmishing force can reasonably bleed the enemy and then withdraw before taking significant losses. It also means that an army designed to take or hold ground should have some strong melee units.

That's the auto-battle system in a nutshell. Each unit may also have special abilities. For example, a Unit with Rebel gains substantial bonuses when attacking a province that you own, but is currently under enemy occupation. A unit with Vampirism heals when dealing damage. These abilities apply to both Auto and Tactical Battles.

Hope that helps.

Good Hunting!

Breca

[stormbringer3]

That system looks very good!

[Ajantaka]

Much better than I expected. This amount of involment of the player in the tactical battle is exactly what is needed, and often lacking, in many strategic games. I would only question why this system is available only to the stacks that have heroes in them. Why not to all battles?

Also, does only one army have to be led by a hero for this system of combat to be used or do both armies have to have heroes?

Every piece of new information you give, Breca, makes the game seem more interesting.

Thanks

[Ajantaka]

Sorry, I read it wrong. Now I understand. Tactical style, move by move, detailed combat is only for stacks led by heroes. All other combat is the method you just described. Excellent. You seem to be anticipating my every wish.

Thanks