Core Force evolution in terms of points

[Achilles]

Gentlemen,

In order to determine what should be the core force evolution during the campaign we should first determine what should be the core force composition for the first scenario of the ANZAC campaign and then what should be the Core force composition for the last scenario of the campaign.

As first scenario you should consider the ToO Greece/ chapter: Platamon and as last scenario a fictional post war conflict between (ANZAC/Allies)_ vs (Russia/Allies) in the ToO Greece_ Civil_war/ chapter: Thermopylae.

What I propose is to calculate the cost of a starting core force consisting of 2 infantry platoons, 1 mortar section, 1 MG section (=one Coy-)

Then we should calculate how much this core force cost and we should set the starting amount of points.

Next we should try to determine what should be the final size of the campaign's Core force.

Perhaps something like the following:

1 Light tank Pl.
2 Medium tank Pl.
1 TD Pl.
2 Inf Coy
2 Arty Bat
2 Gun Pl.
2 Support Pl.

Thoughts?

[hoplitis]

The question is if we want the "mean core force growth rate" to be constant all way through (linear model) or something else? If difficulty of scenario increases as the campaign proceeds than a "second order" curve would be in order!
But the main question is if you want to include expensive "non infantry" units, such as tanks, as part of the core. I'm not so sure about that!

ps I liked the colored text suggestion and just wanted to give it a try! :laugh:

[Mustang19]

Is there any kind of SPWW2 demo or beta out? Is the pricing system similar to WinSPMBT or is it entirely different (for example, do the units cost the same in terms of point numbers)?

According to the 1946 WinSPMBT UK OOB (there is no ANZAC one), a rifle coy. costs 165 points. Most other rifle modern companies cost around 200-300 points, and the 1946 ones cost around 170. Modern first-world OOBs often have 1,000 point companies, but this is because they have a lot of frills. But a WWII rifle company would cost about 170 points in SPMBT. I don't know whether SPWW2 has the same point costs for units, though. I'm sure Achilles knows if he's in on the project.

Anyway, judging from the 1946 UK OOB the starting force you are talking about is about 149. The end force, assuming the light tanks are M24s (there is no light tank in the UK OOB in 1946 so I borrowed it from the US one), the medium tanks are Sherman fireflies, the TDs are Achilles, the artillery batteries are off-map 25pdrs, the guns are 6pdr antitanks, and the Support consists of Heavy Weapons Det., would all together cost 2324. That's about as much as a understrength batallion in SPMBT terms. The player advances through the war from a company to batallion commander- that makes sense, and I agree with the beginning and ending core forces.

[Achilles]

We will simply provide with points the player without restrictions and the player will decide what to do with these points.

If he wishes to form a group of tanks then this will be his "problem".

Anyway, in order to prevent the campaign player from forming a monster army group we may give him directions for forming his campaign forces (in terms of elements)

But the great joy (and big challenge for us) is to allow the player to buy whatever he likes.

Is this a balance problem for the scenario designers?

Yes and No.

Since we can't impose restrictions to the quality and quantity of the core force (other than the points) we can create a certain mechanism that will keep a certain balance.

This mechanism works as following:

We analyse the extreme (core force composition) conditions and we create "trap" scenarios.

What is a "trap" scenario?

Suppose that you have formed a 90% mechanised (Tanks etc) core force.
This may give you an edge in certain scenarios but it may also ruin your progress if you play a special conditions "trap" scenario.

This "trap" scenario could be a scenario that has extremely limiting factors and parameters (in terms of gameplay).

What is a "limiting factor"?

(For example) For tanks, limiting factor is a battlefield with a LOT of rough and unfriendly terrain.

And if a player fails to fulfill the objectives of such a "trap" scenario then he will pay the consequences.

For example, if the player fails to win a "trap" scenario with a certain level of victory (which means that his force is very unbalanced for that specific scenario) then we redirect him to a "penalty" scenario.

What is a "penalty scenario" ?

For a force consisting mainly of tanks (80%-90%) this "penalty" scenario may be a scenario in which the AI forces will be consisted of 50% units with good AT capabilities on unfriendly ground for Tank battles.

We may apply this trap scenario 2 or 3 (max) times during the scenario progress, but this is something that we shall discuss in the future.

Another new element that we may introduce in the scenario campaign mechanism is the "adjustable difficulty" mechanism or at least a variation of it.

cheers,
Pyros

[hoplitis]

Linear or Branched campaign...
At first this the main thing. At least, just to know how many individuals scens must be prepared, Pyro!

Also some estimation on the following:
1) Maximum allowable player (edit: ) TotalForce points (or at least what will be the winSPWWII engine limit)
2) Maximum number of objective hexes on map (or engine limit)
3)Minimum-maximum allowable value of a single objective hex (or engine limit).

[Achilles]

Linear or Branched campaign...
At first this the main thing. At least, just to know how many individuals scens must be prepared, Pyro!

Also some estimation on the following:
1) Maximum allowable player (edit: ) TotalForce points (or at least what will be the winSPWWII engine limit)
2) Maximum number of objective hexes on map (or engine limit)
3)Minimum-maximum allowable value of a single objective hex (or engine limit).

The campaign will be a combination of linear and branched.

The branch mechanism consist of two elements:

A. Campaign choice of paths
B. "Trap" or adjustable difficulty "loops"

The maximum number of units present on a map for each player's side is 500 units.
If you reach that number for the AI forces then this won't be a problem, but for the player's core & auxiliary force we should restrict the allowance of units to a size of 1-2 Bn MAX (otherwise the scenario will get to heavy for the casual player).

The number of objective hexes is the same: 21 VP flags

The values of the VP flags are the same from 0 to 250.

But you won't have to worry so much about the VP flags because I think that in the near future they won't be so important as a designing tool (as they were in the past).

cheers,
Pyros

[Mustang19]

A lot of the starting Greece scenarios probably have a lot of mud and rough terrain. They would be a good chance early on to make sure the player didn't buy a armor-heavy core start force.

One of the ways to "cushion" the effects of the player's core choices is to provide a small core and a lot of auxiliary units in each scenario. I like scenarios with lots of auxiliaries, especially if they are of different nationalities, because it just adds variety and gives you the impression that you're part of a larger war effort.

But given how cheap infantry is in Steel Panthers compared to tanks, it shouldn't be a problem to force the player to have a balanced force. A tank platoon costs maybe 300 points, while a whole infantry company costs 150 or so. Now, if you give the player 500 points of core forces and 500 points of auxiliary forces on average per scenario, he'll realize that he's not going to win a battle with one tank platoon.

[Cameronius]

I would recommend that the core is only given large point allowances periodically, when there is a large time lapse between engagements. Typically a unit would not be given a large refit until taken out of the line. For example the 5 scenarios I am building for the Crete TOO all take place within a 7 day period and it would be my intent to only allow a small amount of rebuild points to the core between the scenarios and have the large points given before and after the battle of Crete.

[wulfir]

I would recommend that the core is only given large point allowances periodically, when there is a large time lapse between engagements. Typically a unit would not be given a large refit until taken out of the line. For example the 5 scenarios I am building for the Crete TOO all take place within a 7 day period and it would be my intent to only allow a small amount of rebuild points to the core between the scenarios and have the large points given before and after the battle of Crete.

Agreed.

Realistic IMHO. Usually do this myself in my own campaigns.

[hoplitis]

Good point Cam!:thumup:
Major Point Boosts must occur when changing Theater of Ops and/or after long periods of rest between battles. "Trickle" reinforcements are OK though, you know as in:
- Sir, all the cooks have volunteered for combat duty. What shall we do?
- Send them immediately, they're lethal enough!:)

[Achilles]

This should be the designer's decision. :smoke:


During the number of battles of a ToO there is always the possibility that the commander of the core force may receive attachments to his initial force.

I also agree that before the start of a new ToO it is very logical that the commander will receive additional points (boost) for upgrades and replacements.

But, since the player's core force won't be fighting the whole campaign as a specific formation but as fictional attachment to various important battles then there is no any specific need for strict rules.

In the early scenarios the replacement points for the casualties will be a very important factor and the ratio of fix:upgrade (expand) can even reach the 1:1.

This is why we should test what are the needed points for a 50% core force casualties and then we should be able to decide more.

But keep in mind that you should always provide a minimum number of fix points between scenarios (unless you design a special scenario).

Anyway, this issue is similar with the concept of changing the level of command between various ToO.

For example the limit for ToO Greece could be 1 company (A)
The limit for ToO Crete could be 2 companies (A + B)
The limit for ToO Africa could be 3 companies (A + B + C)
The limit for ToO Italy/Pacific could be 1 Bn (4 Coys)
The limit for fictional ToO Greek civil war (WW3) the limit could reach 6 coys to 2 Bn.

Cost of A company represents a motorized infantry company
Cost of B company represents a weapons company
Cost of C company represents a Tank company

So the player in ToO Greece should begin with the points for recruiting A company (or perhaps these points could be distributed between several scenarios).
In addition to these points the designer and the playtesters should estimate an average number of FIX points per each specific scenario (for example this could reach the fix points needed for a 20% casualties of the core force; but this greatly depends on the scenario.

Anyway, responsible for deciding the above parameters are the ToO senior designers and the scenario designers of each ToO/scenario.

Btw, do you agree with the proposed limits for the total size of the CORE force for each ToO?
ToO Greece: Coy A
ToO Crete: Coy A + Coy B
ToO Africa: Coy A + Coy B + Coy C
ToO Italy/Pacific: Coy A + Coy B + Coy C + ?(Coy A or Coy B)
ToO Civil war (WW3): To decide

Next we should decide the composition of these types of companies and calculate their cost in points.
For this we should respect the organization of the Commonwealth companies structure.

Since I am working with ToO Greece, I will prepare a table for the Coy A and the overall point cost (and then we may further discuss it).

IMPORTANT: It is better to provide the cost gradually because this way the player may not use it for acquiring a very expensive material (tank) that may unbalance a scenario. This applies more for the early ToOs.

cheers,
Pyros