When two enemy armies occupy the same region, and one is in attack posture, what determines how quickly a battle starts?
It seems to me there is too much of a tendency for battles to start automatically on Day 1, Hour 1. What's more, these retreat checks seem to start the first hour that two enemy forces occupy the same region, even though the region itself may be miles and miles wide! Might there not be a delay before the armies get close enough to necessitate retreat or battle checks?
There should be more of a rendom delay before a battle is brought about, simulating any number of variables. The armies may be miles apart within the region. It may rain, and the generals call off a battle because the powder is wet. There may be several days where the armies jockey for position within the region before an actual battle starts. One or both of the armies may simply be moving slowly.
The ability to start a battle seems too predictable. Even in cases of assault of a city or fort, I'd like to see cases where 5 or 10 days randomly go by before the assault actually begins. There could be any number of reasons for delay at a scale of 30 days per turn.
So how about a totally random delay, in days, once two armies come into contact before the game starts a battle? For example, a British army in attack posture moves into a region with an American army in defensive posture. Now, before anything else, the game makes a random delay roll of 1-15 days. Nothing happens during this time. This is abstracted 'Marching around in the region' time. Then, the game does the normal checks for a battle and/or retreat.
This would help to take into account a number of different little things that might be happening during a 30 day turn, which the player has no direct control over. It would also make the engagements less predictable. Only an army willing to stand on the defense for a full 30 days could reliably be attacked. A moving army may or may not be caught and engaged. This more or less jives with the historical situation I think. On the attacker's side, the player would never be sure how many days would be available after a potential battle for marching to another region.
orca wrote:That would definitely help out the rebels. But what if one of the armies is able to leave the area in seven days? Would there be a chance that no battle would be fought? If so, even better for the rebels.
Yes, that's the idea.
If the non-attacking force leaves the region, there is no retreat or battle, and the stack gets to continue along it's movement path unmolested. This would, for example, allow two armies to start a turn in the same region, but allow one or the other to move away next turn without causing a battle or a retreat. Sometimes. It depends on the length of the random delay.
The attacking force, if set to intercept, can of course follow the defenders to the next region, and start the process over again.
runyan99 wrote:I thought you had mentioned that there was a delay, but I don't notice it at all when I play. I think it should potentially be quite long. Up to half the turn.
I've had battles that didn't start until the 10th day even when I was in an assault posture and the enemy was not attempting to move, so I know the delay is working.
Spharv2 wrote:I've had battles that didn't start until the 10th day even when I was in an assault posture and the enemy was not attempting to move, so I know the delay is working.
That's interesting, but I never seem to experience that. I see lots of
'X Army failed to retreat on Day 1, Hour 1'
'X Army failed to retreat on Day 1, Hour 2'
'X Army failed to retreat on Day 1, Hour 3'
'X Army succeeded in retreating from a battle on Day 1, Hour 4, taking 32 hits'
'X Army lost a battle in region Y'
there messages mean that the battle already started, the delay is checked before battle, but the chances to NOT delay are perhaps too high for your taste? I have seen too forces arriving at mid-turn and not even being able to engage the enemy before the next turn.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
I did a quick test on this.
I started the 1775 campaign, turned off the AI. As soon as one of the British leaders in Boston was activated, I set them to offensive stance to fight the rebels around Boston, and checked to see how much of a delay there was.
I did this 5 times. The battles started on:
Day 3 Hour 1
Day 2 Hour 2
Day 1 Hour 1
Day 1 Hour 1
Day 1 Hour 2
So, the first test does seem to show there is a delay, but in no instance could I get a delay longer than three days. Usually the battle started before sunrise on the first day.
Even if three days was typical, a three day delay is meaningless in the context of a 30 day turn. It just doesn't matter.
If the delay is to matter, it has to have a real potential to stretch into a week or two weeks over the 30 day turn. This would do two things. First it would start to use up a meaningful portion of time, which wouldn't be used for marching somewhere else, and second it would allow a defending force a *chance* to avoid combat by leaving the region before the start of the battle. That's impossible to do in the game as it is, and that doesn't seem right to me.
Keep in mind, the delay doesn't always have to be long. But randomly adding as many 14 day delays as 2 day delays would add an element of unpredictabilty to the game, and would seem to more accurately reflect the slow pace of combat operations in the 18th century. As it is, Howe and Arnold are launching midnight attacks like they are Mongomery at Alamein on a regular basis. That doesn't make sense.
Slow the game down.
I started the 1775 campaign, turned off the AI. As soon as one of the British leaders in Boston was activated, I set them to offensive stance to fight the rebels around Boston, and checked to see how much of a delay there was.
I did this 5 times. The battles started on:
Day 3 Hour 1
Day 2 Hour 2
Day 1 Hour 1
Day 1 Hour 1
Day 1 Hour 2
So, the first test does seem to show there is a delay, but in no instance could I get a delay longer than three days. Usually the battle started before sunrise on the first day.
Even if three days was typical, a three day delay is meaningless in the context of a 30 day turn. It just doesn't matter.
If the delay is to matter, it has to have a real potential to stretch into a week or two weeks over the 30 day turn. This would do two things. First it would start to use up a meaningful portion of time, which wouldn't be used for marching somewhere else, and second it would allow a defending force a *chance* to avoid combat by leaving the region before the start of the battle. That's impossible to do in the game as it is, and that doesn't seem right to me.
Keep in mind, the delay doesn't always have to be long. But randomly adding as many 14 day delays as 2 day delays would add an element of unpredictabilty to the game, and would seem to more accurately reflect the slow pace of combat operations in the 18th century. As it is, Howe and Arnold are launching midnight attacks like they are Mongomery at Alamein on a regular basis. That doesn't make sense.
Slow the game down.
Thinking perhaps that the Boston city siege was a bad example, maybe the delays are shorter for sieges perhaps, I searched for another example that would involve some movement, and then combat in the field.
I found a great example in the 1778 Northern Campaign scenario. The British start in Philadelphia, and the Continental army is in an adjacent region at Reading.
Clinton starts the scenario unactivated. No worry there, I just remove him and use Cornwallis instead, then move the army to Reading. Infantry only, with no artillery to slow the march.
It takes the army exactly 7 days to arrive in Reading each time. How much delay before the battle? I only ran three tests because the results were so similar:
Day 7 Hour 4
Day 7 Hour 2
Day 7 Hour 5
So after crossing the border of Reading County, it took Cornwallis an average of 3.5 hours to march to Washington's location, shake out into line of battle and start a fight. Silly.
The results were slightly different if you use the deactivated leader Clinton instead with the entire stack including wagons and artillery, but I'll post those in the "British Generals Overrated" thread instead.
I found a great example in the 1778 Northern Campaign scenario. The British start in Philadelphia, and the Continental army is in an adjacent region at Reading.
Clinton starts the scenario unactivated. No worry there, I just remove him and use Cornwallis instead, then move the army to Reading. Infantry only, with no artillery to slow the march.
It takes the army exactly 7 days to arrive in Reading each time. How much delay before the battle? I only ran three tests because the results were so similar:
Day 7 Hour 4
Day 7 Hour 2
Day 7 Hour 5
So after crossing the border of Reading County, it took Cornwallis an average of 3.5 hours to march to Washington's location, shake out into line of battle and start a fight. Silly.
The results were slightly different if you use the deactivated leader Clinton instead with the entire stack including wagons and artillery, but I'll post those in the "British Generals Overrated" thread instead.
Pocus wrote:Can you cast a poll?
I could, but honestly, I doubt most players have an opinion on the matter, or even care to think about these sorts of game mechanics. If other players think I'm barking up the wrong tree, they are quite free to say so.
It's my opinion that the BoA system has all the basics of a very fine wargame. Conceptually, all the parts seem to be there. However, the details of how armies move, share space, and interact with one another on the map seems to be imperfect, and still has some room for improvement. Often, it doesn't seem to reflect the historical situation as I read it.
The combat delay, like the strategic activation of leaders, seems like a fine concept inadequately applied. You saw the need for an interval of time between the arrival of a force in a region and the commencement of combat with an enemy force in the same region. You took the time to code this concept into the game. I can also find historical instances where the enemy armies spent significant time in close contact, such as Washington's maneuvers in New Jersey in 1777, which would seem to be well simulated such a game mechanic. A simple mechanic like a random delay can elegantly simulate so much of the unpredictable minutia and maneuvers that might occur during 30 days.
And yet the parameters are flawed, because the times are too short, the delay meaningless. The fine concept wasted.
My intent in asking questions about game mechanics like the delay is primarily to suggest some new ideas to yourself and PhilThib. You are the creators and the developers. You can change or improve the game however you see fit. If BoA is getting a 2.0 makeover, that's your opportunity to make major changes.
Perhaps you'll see some merit in my arguments, or perhaps it will stimulate some thinking on your own. If my ideas make sense to you, then I suggest you consider implementing them. If they don't make sense, I suggest you discard them.
no problem with that. Actually I do think that the delay can be increased too, mostly for BOA, and a bit for AACW.
As for the inactive leader penalty, lets say we will add an option to have it even more stringent. But there is an issue there: if too hard, leaderless troops start to be too good.
As for the inactive leader penalty, lets say we will add an option to have it even more stringent. But there is an issue there: if too hard, leaderless troops start to be too good.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:But there is an issue there: if too hard, leaderless troops start to be too good.
Or they could be restricted just like stacks with an inactive leader. That would mean every stack has to have an active leader to take offensive action.
Generally, there seem to be enough leaders in BoA that I don't think this would be a problem. I rarely want to use leaderless stacks of 1 or 2 units for anything important.
Leibstandarte wrote:I think what Runyan99 says has sense. But the thing is that maybe it doesnt affect to the overall result of a game.
I find that hard to believe. Delays will allow weaker armies to escape more often, and make battles a little less likely to occur. In a short scenario this may not matter, but in the campaigns this has to help the rebels quite a bit.
Leibstandarte wrote:I think what Runyan99 says has sense. But the thing is that maybe it doesnt affect to the overall result of a game.
I find that hard to believe. Delays will allow weaker armies to escape more often, and make battles a little less likely to occur. In a short scenario this may not matter, but in the campaigns this has to help the rebels quite a bit.
-
anarchyintheuk
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 6:27 pm
runyan99 wrote:Thinking perhaps that the Boston city siege was a bad example, maybe the delays are shorter for sieges perhaps, I searched for another example that would involve some movement, and then combat in the field.
I found a great example in the 1778 Northern Campaign scenario. The British start in Philadelphia, and the Continental army is in an adjacent region at Reading.
Clinton starts the scenario unactivated. No worry there, I just remove him and use Cornwallis instead, then move the army to Reading. Infantry only, with no artillery to slow the march.
It takes the army exactly 7 days to arrive in Reading each time. How much delay before the battle? I only ran three tests because the results were so similar:
Day 7 Hour 4
Day 7 Hour 2
Day 7 Hour 5
So after crossing the border of Reading County, it took Cornwallis an average of 3.5 hours to march to Washington's location, shake out into line of battle and start a fight. Silly.
The results were slightly different if you use the deactivated leader Clinton instead with the entire stack including wagons and artillery, but I'll post those in the "British Generals Overrated" thread instead.
I tend to agree w/ slowing the game down, but the game mechanics are excellent in this situation. Using the your example, Clinton has a choice of going after the city or the army. If GW wants to defend the town he can. IMO Clinton moving from Philly to Reading (approx. 60 miles) and attacking a stationary GW in 7 days isn't silly. If you want to avoid combat do what GW would have done in rl . . . move away from Reading. In game terms, that's move to another region. If Clinton chose the town, he takes it and GW is safe. If he chose the army he pursues it with only a percentage chance of interception. Maybe I would add some modifiers to that percentage based on relative strat. ratings, terrain restricting contact/deployment of armies (already a part of the combat model), composition of army: light forces or cavalry as a plus, artillery and supply as a minus (would show the effects of picket/screening forces and rear guards), size of armies, original distance between forces, rivers, region control, weather, etc. This may already be in the game.
orca wrote:That would definitely help out the rebels. But what if one of the armies is able to leave the area in seven days? Would there be a chance that no battle would be fought? If so, even better for the rebels.
I think the idea is sound but one thing I wonder about is the general feeling I get from the forum that the rebels are somewhat underpowered and the game maybe favours the British.
After a very hard fought game (PBEM 1775 alt campaign) I lost as British against an opponent I thought of as an equal. The thing was he managed to beat me even though a bug prevented many of his French units entering the fray (I think around a third)
It was a close game (I will post an AAR at some point - maybe just before BoA 2.0 is released) with only a couple of hundred points seperating us but the game seemed fairly well balanced even without the extra French units.
Are people basing the game balance on games against the AI? How many people have completed a full campaign PBEM? I would love to see the results recorded of PBEM games so we can get some idea of the balance of campaigns. Maybe a sticky for results in both BoA and AACW?
It seems a shame that data such as this could be lost as balance is pretty important when playing PBEM games. We would need quite a few results to get an idea of balance but I feel it's something that would take little effort to do and important to those of us that want a well balanced PBEM scenario.
I wonder how many people have played a full campaign PBEM? Any others out there? I would love to hear what the results were?
Cheers, Chris
anarchyintheuk wrote:If you want to avoid combat do what GW would have done in rl . . . move away from Reading.
I agree, but the short delay makes this harder than it should be.
For example, if Clinton needs 7 days to arrive in Reading, but Washington needs 14 days to move to another region like Mahoning to the west (which he does, I checked), Clinton will *always* catch Washington, given the way the current delay is executed. The short delay means arrival=instant combat, and there will be a battle, or Washington will retreat and lose his movement orders. Even though by the time Clinton arrives, Washington may also have been on the move somewhere else for 7 days! That doesn't make sense.
Keep in mind location in BoA is sticky and simplistic. An army is either 'in' Reading county, or it is not. Washington gets no credit for movement not totally completed. There is no credit for being halfway to Mahoning. To the game, Washington's army is still sitting stationary in Reading, waiting for Clinton to arrive.
The whole thing is that moving armies are too easy to 'catch'.
A combat delay with a large variance, among other things, would help to account for armies on the march leaving a region before an advancing army can 'catch' them.
Under my proposal, Clinton arrives on day 7, and then there is a random delay of 1-14 days before a combat can occur. Washington still needs 7 more days to 'arrive' in Mahoning though. So, depending on the length of the delay, maybe Clinton catches him in Reading, and maybe he doesn't.
That seems a lot more reasonable and realistic to me than insta-combat on Day 7 Hour 4.
Well said runyan99. My experience so far is parallel to yours. I agree that a random delay mechanism is called for.
Just curious though - (this just occurred to me) - have you experimented in using a forced march to get Washington to Reading? As of this writing, I'm not sure if that would have an impact on successful escape.
BobB
Just curious though - (this just occurred to me) - have you experimented in using a forced march to get Washington to Reading? As of this writing, I'm not sure if that would have an impact on successful escape.
BobB
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests