The Problem of Time and Turn Limits in CG Scenario Design

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
469
Reaction score
359
Location
Borden, ON
Country
llCanada
Thanks Matt! So one crucial question is how does the system know how many CCs to make based on what the engagement resolution is? And, realizing that we are in very early days yet, will it be possible to input an effect on CC checks as part of the engagement scenario reporting? This could be a positive or negative effect, and could be handled in several ways. For instance one could just ask the manual engagement report to include info on the relative cohesion loss for each side, and relay on the LLG and the players to judge this. Alternatively, you could assign a requirement to report victory level in the manner that CM does, but adjust it one level either way to reflect cohesion loss, ie a minor victory becomes a draw for CC purposes only if the cohesion loss by the attacker is judged to be severe.

Just spitballing here, of course, but it is becoming clear that this is all interconnected. I would not have thought that trying to puzzle out a guideline for how many ASL turns should constitute an engagement in TO terms would require intimately knowing how cohesion and resupply work in TO, but here we are! I guess what we really need to know is what parameters TO is going to require both going into and coming out of the battle, i.e. what info does TO need from the resolved engagement to be able to move forward?
 

choppinlt

Recruit
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
TO will provide lots of data that LLG players can use to set up their game. This would include supply level and current status of cohesion. Go in to the scenario editor of CM, and all those details about a unit will be expressed in some fashion that TO provides in the OOB for players to use for the LLG. In short, your first instance above is what I was going to implement. I do NOT plan to use victory report levels like CM, because that adds many more complications to the conversion process. IF LLG players want to add detailed victory levels to their LLG game there is nothing stopping them, all I am saying is that it will not be part of the LLG-to-HLG reporting process. I guess the major point here is that true victory or defeat on a tactical battlefield is completely relative to the bigger picture.

What I would like to have is HLG to LLG conversion guidance for players using ASL (and other systems) to be able to easily convert. ..hence this conversation! :) This is where we need to figure out solid processes to represent fatigue, cohesion, troop quality, leadership, morale, casualty levels and and supply issues expressed in the HLG OOB when trying to play it out with ASL.

Going from LLG to HLG, TO will ask for some specific details of the battle results from the LLG players, then convert it to the HLG. From the battle results TO will determine how many CC's will be made for each unit (if any), how much supply is consumed during the battle, fatigue loss, etc. For LLG-to-HLG conversion I think the primary things that need to be evaluated are 1. time conversion; 2. implementing casualties due to how an LLG represents casualties; 3. equipment losses. TO will do the rest.

You mentioned resupply, and I do not currently envision supply being conducted during an engagement. Whew...:)
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
469
Reaction score
359
Location
Borden, ON
Country
llCanada
I realize that these are early days, and much is subject to change, but basically the post-engagement parameters that TO is going to ask for are the following, then, in no particular order:

1. Distance advanced/given up by either side. This is relatively easy to convert, lots of ASL rules out there for determining perimeters.

2. Casualties suffered. Somewhat problematic, but playtest and tweak will have this figured out fairly quickly. I suspect that we will end up using Paul's Lazarus mechanic, as I have a suspicion that ASL will be regularly casualty intensive compared to the TO engagement resolver. One thing that needs to be addressed is the way in which HLG handles vehicle repair, but again, not too big a challenge, as most likely vehicles that are damaged (but not burnt out) will go to a 1st line repair shop and be available in a day or two. Whether the losing unit gets the repaired vehicle or not is another thing. ASL already has mechanics (hah!) for determining whether things like squad weapons, broken vehicle main armaments, etc. are repaired locally and quickly, which we can adapt without too much trouble. I think we can as a complexity-avoider assume that any wreck that is captured by the other side as part of determining the new FEBA will be made unrepairable in HLG terms.

3. Fatigue. This is really hard to track in ASL, and I suspect most other non-CM resolution methods. I think we need to just establish baseline fatigue levels for given situations ie probe/attack/assault, length of battle, etc., and then allow the players a variance from that based on length of engagement, perceived level of "intensity" of the engagement, and so on.

4. Supply issues. Again, hard to track in ASL. Easy at the start, a side is either under ammo shortage (for all/certain systems) or not. But we need to set where that level is as a function of % of "full" supply, which will take some experiment. Harder at the end. Again, a baseline supply loss level per broad situation modified by engagement length and perceived "intensity" would probably work best. Arty is a bit easier, because there is a good built-in ASL ammo level mechanism, and for consumption you can just tally the number of missions fired in the engagement, multiply by a modifier, and there you go. I really don't want to get into changing availability #'s for special ammo within the ASL scenario, btw - too much paperwork.

5. Troop quality/morale/leadership - This can be almost totally handled within the HLG, so far as I am concerned. Not too sure what the input will look like, but keep in mind that part of the ASL scenario generation process will be to randomize the quality and leadership of forces that a side receives, so as to avoid ruinous amounts of recordkeeping over the course of the campaign. My intent was to take the HLG input ie high/low (elite, crack, green whatever) quality/morale/leadership and apply it as a DRM to the force/ELR/leadership table. On scenario end, I guess we can track the number of ELR fails, positive/negative Heat of Battle, and Field promotion results, and then roll to see if that unit(s) raise or lower quality/morale/leadership in the HLG.

6. Cohesion. As for fatigue/supply, establish a situational baseline and apply modifiers, including player input. This will allow us to experiment with Paul's ideas above regarding time conversion and ending battles early in order to gain a cohesion bonus, as well as handle something that is well beyond the scope of ASL.

I am starting to get to the point now where I think maybe I could start putting together a conversion ruleset, although I would need a bit more under the hood info in terms of scales before I started tinkering with building charts and prospective DRMs.

The beauty of it is that once we have the basic concepts of the interface down, it will be easier for others to port our work to other systems. Maybe I will borrow my buddy's Blitzkrieg Commander rules and see what I can do there, at least in terms of translating the hurdles we are looking at here. One thing at a time though!
 

choppinlt

Recruit
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
1. Agreed, should be fairly straightforward, but it will probably require some tweaking;

2. In general, I would suggest trying to keep things as simple as possible. In other words all TO wants to know is how many vehicles are capable of moving on their own (i.e. has a driver and not immobilized) at the end of the battle. TO will take care of everything else; ;)

3,4,5,6 DRM's seem like a good way to handle this, though I am unsure of what the acronyms/terminology means (ERL?). I have another way that could be useful. TO can boil down all the soft factors in to a % of combat power loss. Then a ratio is taken between the 2 sides to determine who and how much of a force multiplier they receive. For example, after doing the ratio Player B receives a force multiplier of 1.25 (125%). For those that dislike math, this can all be prepared for you so don't freak out! :eek:

Let me go back to your original point CK, because DRM’s may be the best way to go with ASL. That will be up to you and the rest of the ASL community to come up with the best way(s) to do it. I just wanted to throw my idea out there to let you know what is possible.

You mentioned gaining/loss of experience, etc. Just to be clear, TO only needs 3 input categories: time, casualties, and vehicle losses. I am going to amend what I said in a previous post by saying that equipment is optional, because TO can interpolate those losses. (So you don't really need to track how many MG42's etc. were lost in a given battle). Back to the point, TO will take care of the rest.

Finally, agreed that once we have methodology down, others won’t have to reinvent the wheel! OTOH, nothing is stopping players with coming up with their own house rules for conversion. :D
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
469
Reaction score
359
Location
Borden, ON
Country
llCanada
ELR = Experience Level Rating, an indication of how badly a unit has to fail a morale check before it loses effectiveness. In ASL this effectiveness loss is reflected by replacing the unit, mid battle, with a lower quality unit of the same size.

I am a little leery, on first contact, about the force multiplier idea, although I understand perfectly its genesis in CM. It does have a benefit in that it reduces complexities conveyed by DRMs to setup parameters, but it will basically have to work in one of two ways, both of which raise problems. First, we assign a number of purchasable units that a side can add as bonus troops, but then we need to have a starting points total, and then assign a points value to each bonus troop unit. This is a prospective nightmare to balance, although ASL does have a DIY points system that is in place, if not used too often. But it would require that we list points values for every unit (coy/pl) in both sides' OOB, then have the players do the math to figure out how much they could purchase in extra troops. Second, we just say that the benefiting side gets X percentage increase in numbers, across the board. But this can be very unbalancing depending on what you have - an extra 4 squads might pale next to an extra 2 Tigers, for example! I agree that for ASL, it might be ultimately easier to try and use the existing "soft factor" mechanisms, rather than apply modifiers based on a points system that is only partially in place. For other systems that do not model soft factors, and do use a points system, though, this would likely be the better way to go.

Not having to worry about experience, fatigue, etc., certainly simplifies things. That way, we can use all these factors as engagement inputs to build a force, then let TO worry about the rest, up until the unit is next engaged. Saves a lot of effort on the post-engagement refit phase, for sure. Need to see it in action, though, and then much tinkering.
 

chris_olden

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
5,287
Reaction score
750
Location
Room 429
Country
llUnited States
ASL is design for effect and an interesting blend of abstraction and deep detail. More than anything else though, the game creates a narrative for the action you, as a designer want to reproduce. Things such as game length and such, usually factor into game balance and playability more than into trying to mimic a real life time frame.

Examine what you are trying to do and decide what you think a good time limit for a competitive game would be.

Second, CG's and scenario's both are designed with a historical battle in mind. During this battle, during the time period X and X, these forces fought with an objective of Y for one side and Z for the other. So now the design challange is how to represent that in a fun/balanced way that people will want to try.

Carl
Good words from a man who knows how to design a scenario!!!
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
Yes one point is how the armies fought. I don't mean with rifles, etc but the courage/tactics/leadership thing.

The Allies hardly ever fought a baseline- baseline battle. Usually something was overwhelming, usually allied airpower and/or artillery.

It should be remembered that both US and British were devastating if they hit the right area at the right time.

Thus the known unknowns will never be in fact known, thus you need to use a gut reaction more than a scientific one, namely does what I am doing
feel right.

I would stay clear of mathematics on this,..
 

Rock SgtDan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
125
Location
State of Confusion
First name
Dan
Country
llSlovenia
When your Operational layer spits out the opposing forces, you need a logic check to determine if it would make a fun to play situation or if the action should be resolved automagically. What information about the opposing side will be provided? Will the Operational layer create Objectives that allow the player to realize that he's the Outpost and his object is to withdraw after (somehow) learning something useful about the enemy force? Or die in place?

Big problem that ASL does not have a working points system that allows you to semi-quantify the strength of each side.
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
469
Reaction score
359
Location
Borden, ON
Country
llCanada
Unfortunately I think that this will have to be provided by the players! I think, however, that the system will provide enough detail that you will know which ones you might want to avoid, just based on size - if your outpost platoon (with withdraw orders) is attacked by a reinforced battalion, you may not wish to play it out, as it will be short and likely boring, as both sides run for the same edge.

The players will have to decide as part of their operational strategy which battles are important, whether because of key terrain, a battle's relationship to the schwerpunkt of the operation, or maybe because it involves a favourite unit! I do not believe there will be smaller-scale operational objectives set in the manner you describe, but the situation you describe will certainly occur, and you as the player will have to decide how long to try and keep that unit in place, gathering info, before force preservation becomes an issue.

And ASL does have a points system, it's just that it is rarely used. I doubt we will make use of it either, as the idea here is not necessarily to spit out "even" battles, but to play the ones that are more important operationally.
 

Rock SgtDan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
125
Location
State of Confusion
First name
Dan
Country
llSlovenia
"you may not wish to play it out, as it will be short and likely boring, as both sides run for the same edge."
Except that before you know what forces the other guy has, you have spent an hour getting the game onto the table. Wasted your day.

"And ASL does have a points system, it's just that it is rarely used."
No it does not. There is no X points for a 4-4-7, no Y points for a LMG. No Z points for a M3 without gyro. No Q points to add a gyro. You cannot buy an 8-1 SMC. The lack of points is a massive fail for the system.
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
469
Reaction score
359
Location
Borden, ON
Country
llCanada
"you may not wish to play it out, as it will be short and likely boring, as both sides run for the same edge."
Except that before you know what forces the other guy has, you have spent an hour getting the game onto the table. Wasted your day.
But you do know enough from the op layer to reasonably know whether it's worth playing, before setup - You will know the basic unit size opposing you, and maybe what units are supporting that attack. So if you have a company in a given spot, you will very likely be aware that the other player has a battalion within engagement range of it, and an armoured unit close by. And both players will have to agree whether or not to play out the operational engagement, so if you think it might be uninteresting, or you want to get to the engagement that might be interesting, you can let the op layer resolve away. And there will be a certain amount of back and forth between the players, as hopefully neither will really want to play boring battles.

"And ASL does have a points system, it's just that it is rarely used."
No it does not. There is no X points for a 4-4-7, no Y points for a LMG. No Z points for a M3 without gyro. No Q points to add a gyro. You cannot buy an 8-1 SMC. The lack of points is a massive fail for the system.
Umm, yes, there totally is. An unexceptional 4-4-7 is worth 3 points. An M3 is worth 44 points. SW and leaders are added to a force based on a ratio of x SW/leader per squad, based on nationality and year; for instance in '41-42 ETO Americans get 1 HMG per 12 squads, while Allied Minors get 1 leader per 7 squads. Gyro (and Sz) are rolled for based on year. Read the first bit of Ch H.

But the discussion of points is a bit misleading here, as the objective is not to create even-point battles - you can play DYO is that's what you want! The point is to move units around an operational scenario and reach objectives by taking ground, destroying the enemy, etc. In fact one of the problems we are going to run into is having too many mismatched (and not fun to game out) battles, as a good operational player will seek to create situations where his/her side has force mismatches at more important spots than the opponent does, if you get my meaning.
 

Rock SgtDan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
125
Location
State of Confusion
First name
Dan
Country
llSlovenia
No, Ch H is totally useless as a points purchase system. And a points system (balanced !!! ) is necessary to get a rough idea of game balance (the situation providing the rest of the balance).
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
469
Reaction score
359
Location
Borden, ON
Country
llCanada
I'm not about to try and redesign a points system for ASL, that's a bit more work than I think is necessary here. I'm not a big fan of points systems anyways, and tend to avoid systems that rely on them, as I feel they lead to stupid things like people buying full flamethrower tank regiments because that unit is OP, and there are no rarity or purchase limits, etc., never mind that flamethrower tanks were never used that way. Instead, I like games that start with OBs, i.e. Panzer or Combat Mission, for example. And that's what TO is trying to do.

Now I realize that all you are looking for is a crutch to help you decide whether a particular battle is going to be roughly even and therefore hopefully worth playing. But I don't feel that this will be as big an issue as you fear, largely because the two players will collaborate. So in a given TO "turn", there may be several engagements that occur. But you can't play them all, you'd never get done. So you look at them with your opponent, and decide that out of Engagement A, B, and C, B is the one that involves the closest correlation of forces, or occurs on the most important ground, or whatever. So you play that one, and hope you have a good time.
 

Rock SgtDan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
125
Location
State of Confusion
First name
Dan
Country
llSlovenia
The more work the computer can do, the better. Then you have potential for many players to be involved.

Of course, there's no evidence that ASL is inherently balanced. Put a German company across its standard defensive frontage, then have an American company attack in thier doctrinal frontage -- is it a good game? Give historical results?
 
Top