Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios
-
Sorry for this clunky title, and beware of Atlantic Wall of text.
I am absolutely proud of my personal mod ww2 scenario, specifically my unit roster which contains up to dozens of different, unique unit types which not only have different values but also have alot specialized support attachments, which ended up in a scissor-rock-paper element, which itself is one really good way to balance out the hitpoint/cost efficiency problem of units if they reach higher combat values and movement.
This i can say because its tested out extensively vs AI, in regard of AI purchase, which i claim is one indicator of a reasonable cost structure, and furthermore in combat, which can be more interesting because its not only about stacking hp, but also significantly about unit composition, ally AND enemy.That approach means that as you get higher tier units, which most of the time means higher combat values, you will gain not only att/def/mov for some more PUs, which in general is rarely really worth it normally, but also some/alot "hidden" support attachments which at the end leads to a more balanced outcome.
(One thing to mention here is that i always limit support attachments to exactly 3 for every unit as a maximum allowed, because the game cannot show more on tooltip. And 3 is more than enough.)Example (att/def/mov):
My Battleships 4/4/2 (2hp) have the potential of 6/6 att/def if they are supported by air (recon) and destroyer (escort) and can weaken (-1AD) all other main combat naval vessels like e.g. Battlecruisers or Cruisers.
My cheap slow coastal submersibles 2/2/1 on the other hand can reach up to 5/5 att/def if they have also air recon and are confronting only sluggish Battleships escorting convoys (transporters) without presence of enemy air and destroyers.This makes every unit type to have a different ideal encounter strength. So you will not only look for the rough amount of hp of an enemy army, but also about the compositions.
Not all encounters will be like that for sure, but enough to be exiting if you can beat the enemy army even if the hp ratio is not that much favorable at the first glance, because you exploited that composition.Another easy example from my game (att/def/mov/cost):
Light Tank 2 2 2 = 7 PU
Medium Tank 3 3 2 = 9 PU
Above cost values are exchangeable, the prinicple of hp/cost problem still exists, no matter how high you go with base costs, it only diminishes, but doesnt change the picture more or less. Although it could be done by setting costs in really high numbers i guess.But if you pack in enough reasonable special support attachmants, it will come much closer to a good buy.
So in this case for example, only the MT will benefit from air recon (for long range weapon combat) while also be able to weaken other LTs and furthermore is more suited to attack fortifications of all kinds. With the right support (air, and mobile infantry in my case) and enemy composition, the MT will end up at 5/4 att/def while weaken a enemy LT and Trenches or similar stuff.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Now to my actual problem and start of my brainstorm:
In my ww2 scenario, i have plenty of reasonable unit combination support options in my head, either through some reading about warfare history or documentations. WW2 military history is huge.
But now i want to make a scenario in the world of Rome and the Barbarians (around 190 BC or so), which i was very exited about till i thought about unit roster, compositions, supports and variety.
And then it struck me. I will eventually end up in a much less complex structure because some mechanics are really hard to reason to use in such a scenario and the unit variation therefore is much smaller. I really want to use all possible mechanics in the game, even if its tricky.Obvious:
no Air units -> no scramble, and i love the scramble mechanic!
How to implement scramble in a non-aircraft evironment?
I would miss that part really.Still Reasonable:
Land units with the ability to evade (or first strike?)Another one is how would you characterize a berserker like unit?
isSuicide with high combat values?Or how would you generally reason about whether a unit is a offensive one, and which a defensive one?
Are spearmen is a defensive unit because they have a shield? Or because they have a spear? Or because they have both?
There could be a phalanx support attachment for greek hoplites for example. And of course, they are good vs horsemen.Cavalry as a shock unit sounds reasonable. So they are the offensive combat power then right? Right i guess.
Archers on the other hand are defensive specialists?
I am already thinking of a support attachment too boost the defence of archers if they are behind any allied unit which is wearing a shield. If they loose the blocking melee unit infront of them and get attacked by enemy melee. And therefore are more likely to die next. But only on defense, because in offence, the melee are eventually approaching the enemy lines... and so on and so on.Does armor make a unit have more hp or does it only get higher combat values? Is armor hindering offence capability or even increase it?
At wich level of armor equipment (helmet, body armor, shield) you would consider a unit not be in disadvantage over bowmen?
Can land units on foot be considered fast (2movement) but only if they wear no body armor? (Cav could be then 3 movement)Recently i was reading and watching about sword vs shield combat. Result: Sword and shield beats spear and shield.
War-axes are good vs armor, swords are not.
Can horsemen be transports? (i know at least germanic tribes were doing it.)
Which units are able to be transported?I always try to visualize the combat situation and its potential outcome. Which gave me solid results in building up my huge rock-paper-scissor based ww2 unit structure.
So here i am, and my brain goes nuts.
I like to read about any of your ideas if you are spending time playing such non-modern scenarios or fantasy, medieval themed ones (most know spear,sword,shield,bow) on how you would reason about different unit values, characteristics and possible support attachments in any form you can think of.
Especially scramble, def/att alignment and allied/enemy support attachments.Thanks for reading. At ease.
-
Here you can see some images to get some impressions of units i want to use.
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2574/how-to-properly-scale-unit-images-with-high-and-different-resolutions -
- No more than 10-12 units for nations and giving every of them the simplest stats as much as possible.
- Avoiding duplicative or very situational units.
- No unique units unless absolutely needed.
- No one dimensional unit.
Actually everything basically turn around some simple concepts even the timeline doesn't matter much.
Unit1: Cheapest, best defense for buck, need to be there for better TUV swings
Unit2: Overall worse cost efficiency,but still some usefulness like good cargo size or optimized placement restrictions
Unit3: Fast unit.
Unit4: 2HP units.
Unit5: A unique unit like being able to build structure, turn into structure or being the only unit with the highest attack/cost ratio etc...
Unit6: Transport
Unit7: Unit1 equivalent but on the sea
Unit8: Unit3 equivalent but on the sea
Unit9: Factory
Unit10: Defensive structure. -
@TorpedoA said in
I am absolutely proud of my personal mod ww2 scenario, specifically my unit roster which contains up to dozens of different, unique unit types which not only have different values but also have alot specialized support attachments, which ended up in a scissor-rock-paper element, which itself is one really good way to balance out the hitpoint/cost efficiency problem of units if they reach higher combat values and movement.
Let's see your scenario
no Air units -> no scramble, and i love the scramble mechanic!
How to implement scramble in a non-aircraft evironment?
I would miss that part really.You can have air units if you want. You would just need to make sea a specialized type of land terrain and give warships big advantages at sea. Allowing land units to fight at sea and sea units to fight on land is actually realistic for ancient warfare. You could then use air units to reflect raiders and the like. You probably don't want to got that way but it is possible.
Still Reasonable:
Land units with the ability to evade (or first strike?)First strike can definitely be done. Recent changes to the engine make land unit evasion possible but I am not sure how well that would work gamewise.
Another one is how would you characterize a berserker like unit?
isSuicide with high combat values?It could be handled that way.
Or how would you generally reason about whether a unit is a offensive one, and which a defensive one?
Are spearmen is a defensive unit because they have a shield? Or because they have a spear? Or because they have both?
There could be a phalanx support attachment for greek hoplites for example. And of course, they are good vs horsemen.Offense & defense should be seen in strategic terms, not about whether a unit had a shield. Any trained, close-order infantry could handle a cavalry charge. I doubt that adding attachments is necessary.
Cavalry as a shock unit sounds reasonable. So they are the offensive combat power then right? Right i guess.
Shock cavalry is medieval not ancient. Cavalry should be more of a support unit, working synergistically with heavy infantry.
Archers on the other hand are defensive specialists?
I am already thinking of a support attachment too boost the defence of archers if they are behind any allied unit which is wearing a shield. If they loose the blocking melee unit infront of them and get attacked by enemy melee. And therefore are more likely to die next. But only on defense, because in offence, the melee are eventually approaching the enemy lines... and so on and so on.The TripleA combat model does not have the sophistication to do what you want. The big advantage of missile weapons was in sieges.
Does armor make a unit have more hp or does it only get higher combat values? Is armor hindering offence capability or even increase it?
At wich level of armor equipment (helmet, body armor, shield) you would consider a unit not be in disadvantage over bowmen?
Can land units on foot be considered fast (2movement) but only if they wear no body armor? (Cav could be then 3 movement)HP is probably more a function of training and morale than armor. It represents the ability of unit to function despite casualties.
I always try to visualize the combat situation and its potential outcome. Which gave me solid results in building up my huge rock-paper-scissor based ww2 unit structure.
For ancient warfare, fortifications are important. Cavalry is of limited value in sieges while artillery is very useful while in field battles the reverse is true. Depending on the scale of the game, fortifications could be units or terrain effects.
Another trade-off is regulars vs militia. Regulars are expensive to create but they are more effective in battles. Local militia type forces could be created quickly and cheaply but if moved outside of their local areas they would be as expensive to feed as regulars.
Battles in ancient times tended to have lop-sided outcomes, but as long as the cities were held, new forces could normally be recruited. You need to have upkeep costs to make ancient warfare realistic.
In most cases, offense and defense should be the same for ancient units. The justification for higher defense would be the advantage of home areas and small fortifications, For example, the elaborate camps of Roman legions should give them a big advantage on defense.
-
@TorpedoA
If you have not already take a look at my map, as I went through the same thought processes as you.
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2399/settlers-age-of-tribes-official-thread/1Although it is Fantasy, it still has;
Commanders - an absolute must in Ancient warfare to give a bonus to units in their territory+1 A/D for 10 units
Light Infantry - good all rounds can be raised anywhere, but lower A/D, +1 on rough ground, also are Marines
Heavy Infantry - good defensive unit
Bow - uses AA code to simulate mass archery, no good against Fort or Castle
Spear - anti cavalry unit, -1 A/D to enemy CavalryLight Cavalry - Fast moving, Blitz cavalry
Heavy Cavalry fast moving Heaving Infantry with a Charge Bonus good against other unitsCatapults - Anti Fort and Castle, built anywhere
Longboat - think Bireme, barbarians can still have Hemiolia/Lembos think Pirates
Greatship - think Trireme/Quadreme Roman only
TransportFort & Castles - Barbarians would have hill forts, Romans both, Give bonus to defenders and -1/-2 to 10 attackers
Town and city - Barbarians would only have towns, Romans would have towns and cities.
.Roman Legions should be able to move 2(20 miles a day), same as Cavalry, other Infantry move 1.
Also check how I used territory effects, in my latest unreleased map, I have used territory effects even more.
-
@TorpedoA I see you want to be historical. I don't really try to do that in my maps, because it's too much of a constraint. But I'll share my opinion on what a historical map should look like.
The movement of all land units should be the same. Sure, on a battlefield a horse offers increased mobility, but the mobility of an army across large distances isn't dependent on how fast they can move. The primary constraint is organizing the supply chain. Roman legions were so fast because of roads and exceptionally developed logistics. The only arguable exception to this rule is steppe hordes. Also, this is the reason why controlling the sea was so important (sea transportation of supply is incomparably more efficient than land transportation).
As already mentioned, cavalry charge wasn't a thing before medieval knights. Horse breeds were too small, people had no idea how to train horses not to be scared in a battle, and the stirrup wasn't invented yet. At first, horses were used only by scouts. In the classical period, actually fighting while sitting on a horseback was a huge invention. It still mostly meant throwing javelins, though. The peak of ancient cavalry technology was the cataphract, which was an actual melee cavalry.
Sword and shield does beat spear and shield, but only in an extremely unrealistic situation: one on one, both highly trained, single weapon only. In an actual battle, a spearman would be part of a huge formation, and would carry a shortsword as a secondary weapon. Swords are highly impractical (in a battle) - a quality sword is very expensive compared to a spear, and requires years of training to use effectively. In comparison, one can learn to use a spear and march in formation well enough to be useful in battle in a week or two. Vitrually every successful classical military relied on spear-and-shield, and that's mostly synonymous with heavy infantry. One exception to this is Rome, who used sword-and-shield for a while, but they could only pull this off due to their unique discipline and organization.
Another exception is the Persians, who relied heavily on bows. Bows are also highly impractical - but devastating, if the hurdles are overcome. Bows are hard to make, require special wood, need a lifetime of training and extreme strength to draw - well, the ones powerful enough to be useful in battle, at least. The Persians used them in large numbers, but in every other classical military, bowmen only served a very limited role.
Light infantry was used to protect the flanks of heavy infantry, and to harrass enemy heavy infantry. They mostly just engaged in small skirmishes. It was usually the heavy infantry fighting as marines, too (e.g. epibatai).
In modern scenarios infantry is a defensive unit because it performs more efficiently when hiding in a trench than when running toward a trench. In a classical setting, every battle is just a battle. It doesn't matter if you're attacking or defending, you just walk up to the enemy and start stabbing. Therefore there shouldn't really be a difference between attack / defense stats of any unit.
I'm going to stop here. I should be clear enough at this point why I believe trying to be historical in a classical setting is a mistake. I do have many ideas for interesting units though, if we drop the constraint of trying to reflect historical reality.
-
So much elaborate thoughts. Thats awesome.
Thank you all thousand times. -
@TheDog said in Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios:
If you have not already take a look at my map, as I went through the same thought processes as you.
Well, i am aware of that map, but didnt look at it or read or played. Shame on me.
Thank you, that will help me alot. I will read through and have a deep look. -
@alkexr said in Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios:
Sword and shield does beat spear and shield, but only in an extremely unrealistic situation: one on one, both highly trained, single weapon only. In an actual battle, a spearman would be part of a huge formation
Oh yes. That was not in my mind then. You are right.
-
@alkexr said in Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios:
I see you want to be historical
At least somehow yes. Even semi is enough for me. Some historical touch is a must for me.
@alkexr said in Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios:
I should be clear enough at this point why I believe trying to be historical in a classical setting is a mistake.
So you wanted to say that its better in a non-classical setting? I just want not missread you.
By classical you think of antiquity/medieval right?@alkexr said in Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios:
drop the constraint of trying to reflect historical reality.
If there is a good way to reflect or simulate history somehow, i try it. If not then yes, it must be dropped then.
-
I'll double @alkexr on a thing and precise it maybe better. This usual dualism of "spear-man" and "sword-man" is not based on reality. Every non-poor "spear-man" is also a "sword-man" (unless preferring another secondary weapon), because a sword (and especially ancient "half-swords") is a side weapon. The Roman legionaries usually called "sword-men" would be better defined as "javelineers" (we cannot use the term "lancers" because the meaning has greatly changed), as that is what they gave up the spear for (not the (half-)sword, which you would carry in a scabbard anyway, having or not having a spear).
On the other hand, the "expensive sword" concept is a mith. A good practical sword costs very little if the game has a timeline of a few months per round or more. I don't know how much it costed in Ancient times, but in Medieval times every normal soldier, comprising foot sergeants (and certainly comprising every archer or arbalister), had a good quality sword by its side (which should have costed about two weeks of wage). Metal armor was what was really very expensive, and good quality war-horses were even much more expensive than that (still talking about the Medieval period, as I don't actually know the costs in the Ancient one).
-
For game play you might consider a "spear" unit A2 D1 and a "phalanx" A1 D2 on a 12 sided die. Cost the same.
-
@beelee I never considered going with 12 die.
I would feel lost how to put my unit values.
6 is not that much but it serves well enough for me. -
@TorpedoA I think Hepps uses 12 in total world war. Gives a lot more flexibility. I've never done it myself. Just mod existing games
