Blitz more like amphibious attacks?

[zlefin]

re your point 3 independent or semi-independent were based off my initial proposal, wherein you had to have at least one attacker per defender in order for other unist to go past (though other, higher ratios could also be used, and would raise the question of which ratios to support, or if some attackers should be better/worse than others at pinning down defenders to enable superblitz by making it a unit modifiable property, which could also let you modify the amount of "defensive screen" a unit provides) .
at any rate that's how they'd make sense there.

I left it more vague in the prior post since we might come up with some other schemes to base what allows you to blitz past on; like total pips, hits, or tuv, or who knows what.

certainly a lot of what we try/put extra effort into implementing would be based on what the mapmakers could most make use of and leads to more interesting gameplay.

it does indeed get quite complicated if you can go more than 1 province in, but may still be feasible for some implementations. the first thing that comes to mind with going deeper is the trucks of nwo with their 3 move. those were sometimes part of some triple nation can-openers.

and good thoughts; we definitely got some ironing out to do on this befor eit'd be ready to implement; and we may come up with more oddball scenarios that cause problems for some proposals.

[Hepps]

I think there should be some inherent risk to this concept since it can represent an extremely powerful tool.

I think the idea that the attacker should have to match the defender in terms of the quantity of units in the initial battle is a sound principle factor. This is simply to limit the potential exploitation of the mechanic and makes good sense from a game mechanics point of view.

The outcome of the initial battle should not factor into the superBlitz battle. This would also simplify it enough from a mechanical standpoint. As long as you have fullfilled the requirements to allow excess superBlitz units to move deeply (equaled your attacking units to the defending units) ... you may do so.

I think the superBlitz units should have no option for a retreat. Since there needs to be some risk to this. Blitzing deep should have a higher risk factor. Retreating to the initial battle Territory seems like it would make this to powerful.... you would then only ever be able to reinforce your line by moving stacks and deep strafes could become common place... while also severely complicating the situation if the initial battle ends in anything other than an attacker victory. And allowing a superBlitz unit to retreat to its original terr. seems even more outrageous. A 2 movement unit would effectively be able to move 4.

[redrum]

@zlefin @Hepps I worry if you only look at number of units needing to be equal then you end up with lots of ways to exploit this mechanic that seem weird. Some examples (tanks are assumed to have superblitz):

1. I have 10 infantry and 1 tank next to 10 enemy tanks, I can attack the 10 enemy tanks with my 10 infantry then use by 1 tank to blitz past to capture a factory or strategic territory behind them. I retreat my 10 infantry after round 1 with just a few loses and I've captured a strategic territory with my 1 tank. This may lead to needing to have now 1 infantry unit in the territories behind my main stack instead of what we have now that tends to be in front of or beside my main stack.
2. I have a map with a large spectrum of unit strength/costs. I have one weak infantry unit that costs 3 PU and another heavy tank that costs 15 PU. I can use infantry 1 for 1 to tie down a heavy tank that is 5x my strength/value to allow my tanks to superblitz past. You could have even more extreme examples if you get to having 'hero' or 'general' type units that have very high costs.

[Hepps]

@redrum Yup I agree. So then what? Combat strength total?

Coming up with a reasonable solution might end up getting pretty complex for the player.

Or having to win the initial battle? Which then again leaves the Super Blitz unit(s) in a strange limbo? Do they automatically get destroyed? Do they get to retreat back to where they were sent from originally?

[redrum]

@hepps Combat strength probably isn't much better since then you aren't considering AA style attacks which more and more maps are using.

For independent to work well, you probably need to do something like @zlefin mentioned where there's a unit parameter that sets "screenValue" amount so for instance different units can count for different amounts. Could imagine AT guns having a high "screenValue" and being the primary way to use fewer units to prevent superblitzes. Though if you do that then the counting of that might become a pain and you may need some way to visualize it on the UI. The best without an additional property might be "TUV" since it tends to be the best representative of strength/value and would be harder to exploit given that a map maker has reasonable "TUV" for all units (though this could get weird with air units since they tend to be more expensive).

Yeah, I tend to lean towards contingent where you need to win the first battle (superblitz units don't participate in that one) and have it work more like amphibious assaults. Whether they retreat or die, if you don't win the first battle depends how risky you want the mechanic to be. I lean towards retreat as I don't think players want to see their 10 tanks die when they hit that 1% loss chance of the first battle. This makes combat move phase more of a "planning" vs "execution" model where you are more ordering your moves and seeing how they play out based on battle results. So for contingent, you are ordering the tanks to superblitz but if you initial battle fails then its like the superblitz didn't succeed in breaking through.

PS. For the example image you posted, I think that shows a good example that if Eastern Evenki was worth something (factory, high PU value, etc) then Russia would probably want 1 infantry there to contest that. Which leads to users having to worry about can my army defend the territory (usually using battle calc) and do I have enough units to prevent a superblitz (counting up my defenders vs max attackers).

[zlefin]

whatever setups are chosen; a map that used superblitz will need to be balanced around its existence, and throwing it into an existing map would mess up the balance.

if a simple ratio is used; there's the question of what that ratio should be, and where it would be set (i.e. permanently fixed by the engine, or in the map xml, even in the options area fo the map so people can play with different values if they want). and if we did that whether to allow only simply integer ratios, or allow fractions, or even floating point.
for some problem cases requiring 2:1 or 3:1 attackers/defenders before you can superblitz past would work well.

like ya say, one of the big questions is ease of use/clarity in the interface vs other gameplay concerns. unit counts are easy to do, and easy for the player to understand; pip counts or hp counts get harder, moreso when you factor in those aa-style attachments. somethin gthat depended on how the battle would turn out if fought would get very hard for the player to estimate.

side note: we'd probably want to have terrain types (which are coded as territory attachments?) that prohibit superblitzing. I don't see units that prohibit super blitzing to be a likely request; as most games are setup in ways that if such a unit existed, every stack that needed it could have one rendering the mechanic moot. unless they were super expensive/otherwise weak, or were preplaced starting only units that can' tbe built; though maybe someone would want such.

[wirkey]

I'd like to bring up my idea again. Isn't that the original definition of a blitz(krieg) that tanks would break through a defense and into the back country? I've got no idea about coding but from a rules standpoint I think it's more or less the easiest and cleanest solution to allow tanks an additional move if they won their battle in the first territory in the first (second, third... optional) battle rounds.

[zlefin]

might be hard code-wise; if that extra move (or probably only allow it if they have remaining moves) takes them into another combat, then combat ordering effects will apply.
mostly though, the engine enforces phases pretty strongly, having to insert a move/pseudomove in the middle of combat resolution. not sure how that would interact with thin sglike scramble, as normally all scrambles should be done before any combats have been resolved; but this would allow you to potentially add new attacks, as well as reinforce existing ones, after scramble has occurred. even if we added another scramble phase, that might not apply if the air has already scrambled.

what would be the other limitations on such a tank move, if any? would it allow them to retreat to a safe location thus avoiding counterattacks? even if such is no tdirectly allowed, there might be setups where it would effectively do so by letting them retreat to another location you're attacking that is less vulnerable to counterattack.

certainly worth pondering more though.

[redrum]

@wirkey @zlefin Within the current engine, it would probably be easier to have 2 combat move and battles phases rather than trying to hack that into one. But should be possible if that was the direction that folks wanted to take.

[wirkey]

@redrum I think it would be already possible to have a 2nd combat move phase after the combats, right? But that would only allow units who have movement points left to move, right?

[prastle]

@redrum the ?is how to allow them to only use them 2 per combat round/

[redrum]

@wirkey Yeah, you can have as many combat move phases as you want. Right now you can either choose to reset movement in between the phases or not reset it. The only thing that wouldn't be possible at the moment without changes is being able to have a unit fight in 2 combat phases without resetting its movement. You'd need some sort of unit property to allow it to fight multiple battles and not set its remaining movement to 0 after the first battle.

Pseudo Code/XML

1. Create new special Blitz Only Combat Move phase that only allows "canSuperBlitz" units to attack.
2. Setup XML having: Combat Move, Battle, Blitz Only Combat Move, Battle phases
3. At the end of each battle, remaining units have their movement set to 0 but don't do this for units with new property (canSuperBlitz). You could also put a condition on not setting movement to 0 only if they win their battle in the first round or X rounds if you wanted. This will allow the canSuperBlitz units to attack again in the Blitz Only Combat Move phase.

The only other thing to consider is whether to allow non-combat moves during the Blitz Only Combat Move phase to make non-combat moves.

[General_Zod]

@zlefin

Here's an additional suggestion. Superblitz type units (units with settable attribute) are only allowed to attack "territory B" if the defenders in "territory A " are completely wiped out in 1 combat round.

With the prerequisites being the superblitzing units need to have one movement point remaining (minimum). And only superblitzing units that participated in the initial battle (where the 1 combat round rout occurred) are eligible to advance.

This model would need an additional combat move and combat phase. Which would be offered only to the prerequisite units, after all normal combat only if an enemy territory was wiped out in 1 combat round.

I think if this model was doable then retreat can be as normal for the superblitzing units, thus allowing strafes. (into territory B)

I think this model would translate well into players planning. Its very simple and intuitive.

This would essentially just allow 2 combats for the superblitzing units, which they can attack behind forward , wherever they choose.

A good defenders tactics would be to avoid being wiped out in 1 combat round if superblitzers are in area. Or deploy units accordingly to avoid damage.

[General_Zod]

Maybe the code for airborne can be reworked to allow my suggestion. Since it adds a unique combat move for airborne. And the unique delegate for it exists already.

[General_Zod]

I have an even simpler idea. The prerequisite for superblitzer participation in the 1 combat round battle can be omitted. Thus allowing all superblitzers to capitalize on the rout if they have enough movement points remaining.

Ah, sorry maybe not so good and idea. This can open up problems on what Is an eligible "territory B".

My original idea does cover that component though.

[prastle]

@redrum ya we need the ability to fight multiple combat rounds with the initial "Surprise", attack round one. After round one it doesn't change anything here.

[Schulz]

I really support this idea. Putting just one infantry in front of the enemy forces should not be enought to prevent blitz. Mobile land units should be allowed to blitz throughout enemy soil during non-combat phrase. The tactic of encirclement should be part of big maps realistically.

[Hepps]

@schulz I feel like the first sentence of this comment means it should end with something like... "This message has been brought to you by the party against single blocker units".