[Idea] Encirclement bonus

[borsook79]

Encirclements were a very important feature of WW2 battlefields, but PzC AFAIK does not model this in any way. Here are two simple ideas for implementing this. Both talk about a bonus for the attacker, but that could be easily substituted for a defence penalty for the defender.

1. Simplified - the attacker gets +1 to attack for every 2 units on the hexes next to the defender (so max is +3)

2. Advanced - the attacker gets +1 to attack for every 2 units on the opposite sides of the defender (so the same max, but placing units requires more tactics).

I feel this small change would make the gameplay more interesting, making you pay more attention to your units placement.

[ThvN]

Well, there is a 'Mass Attack' penalty already in the game, which reduces initiative for the defender in case multiple units are adjacent and able to attack it. See for some comments: viewtopic.php?t=26943 You can check the combat log, it makes a note of it.

I use this mechanism heavily, for example when combatting opposing fighter aircraft, it can make a lot of difference in results.

[borsook79]

Well, there is a 'Mass Attack' penalty already in the game, which reduces initiative for the defender in case multiple units are adjacent and able to attack it. See for some comments: viewtopic.php?t=26943 You can check the combat log, it makes a note of it.

I use this mechanism heavily, for example when combatting opposing fighter aircraft, it can make a lot of difference in results.

Oh, I was not aware of this. This invalidates idea no 1, still no 2 would work.

[Blitz1945]

Plus, it seems to me the way the game is designed the concept is to spearhead past obstacles and get to the weaker units with your heavies and then mop up.

[Horst]

The initiative reduction of mass attack is fine, but it doesn’t simulate the opportunity to attack the weak sides of tanks. For example, you could amass 6 early T-34 around an Elefant in the open, but attacking first would hardly help overcoming its high defense. Normally if all T-34 would attack at same time from all direction, the Elefant’s 80mm side and rear armor could be penetrated at a much higher chance.
I’d give a ground defense penalty too next to an initiative one. A reduction to close defense isn't necessary because it already reflects flanking and such with infantry.

[Rudankort]

Two points though:

- On game's scale the effect of attacking from the side or rear would be much less pronounced than on tactical scale, or even non-existant, for a number of reasons.

- The game does not show unit orientation in any way visually, so adding this concept would be rather hard. Even if a unit is surrounded by 6 enemies, how to determine which of these 6 units is attacking from which side?

[Blitz1945]

The game is not really built for surrounding units and destroying them.
That is my thought at least.

[Horst]

The game is not really built for surrounding units and destroying them.
That is my thought at least.

No? And I thought a wargame is exactly about that: exploiting and defeating.

The kill chance difference of such GD reduction wouldn't be really that huge as someone might think anyway. Let’s say the HA of the T-34 is 11 and the GD of the Elefant is 22. Then the T34's sup/kill chance of 11 points difference is 5/11% if I’m not mistaken. Lowering the Elefant's GD to 16 (5 difference) would increase the T34's sup/kill chance to 7/21%.
It’s not a big difference but still helpful, so what’s the problem? Seriously, how often do you move 6 units around an enemy? Looks fine enough for me to improvise flanking in a simple way, attacking where the strongest defense isn't always directed to. The smooth chance scaling of the game is already supporting this nicely.

[Blitz1945]

You misinterpret what I am saying. Panzer General is not that type of game. I understand the concept. Try Advance Tactics, or commander the great war, which penalizes units cut off and surrounded. To me you do not have the units required for that type of scenario in PG. You seem to think so, so maybe your play style is different than mine.

[borsook79]

Two points though:

- On game's scale the effect of attacking from the side or rear would be much less pronounced than on tactical scale, or even non-existant, for a number of reasons.

- The game does not show unit orientation in any way visually, so adding this concept would be rather hard. Even if a unit is surrounded by 6 enemies, how to determine which of these 6 units is attacking from which side?

Well, quite easily. Each pair of units placed on the opposite sides of the defender would give you the bonus. (i.e. you can draw a straight line between them through the defender) it is easy to see, no special marking necessary.

[Zhivago]

Two points though:

- On game's scale the effect of attacking from the side or rear would be much less pronounced than on tactical scale, or even non-existant, for a number of reasons.

- The game does not show unit orientation in any way visually, so adding this concept would be rather hard. Even if a unit is surrounded by 6 enemies, how to determine which of these 6 units is attacking from which side?

Maintenance and Supply would be two features that I would vote to be added to Panzer Corps 2--perhaps only as OPTIONS though, like weather, fog of war, etc. A land-based unit that it cut off from the rest of its force (with the possible exception of recon units) would definitely have a morale issue. Encircling maneuvers were the name of the game in WW2. Being able to cut a unit off from supply, or reduce its morale by encircling it, would be a great part of a new engine for Panzer Corps 2.

[Aloo]

Two points though:

- On game's scale the effect of attacking from the side or rear would be much less pronounced than on tactical scale, or even non-existant, for a number of reasons.

- The game does not show unit orientation in any way visually, so adding this concept would be rather hard. Even if a unit is surrounded by 6 enemies, how to determine which of these 6 units is attacking from which side?

Maintenance and Supply would be two features that I would vote to be added to Panzer Corps 2--perhaps only as OPTIONS though, like weather, fog of war, etc. A land-based unit that it cut off from the rest of its force (with the possible exception of recon units) would definitely have a morale issue. Encircling maneuvers were the name of the game in WW2. Being able to cut a unit off from supply, or reduce its morale by encircling it, would be a great part of a new engine for Panzer Corps 2.

You can cut a unit from supply already with 3 units but I understand you are looking at a more complicated system with roads, supply dumps or something like that. I think it would need very careful thinking so the AI can handle this but it might be fun. It would need to take into account air supply also as it played a big role in some major operations. Im not sure how could morale be implemented? Long term suppresion? ROF limitation? I agree that this should be optional but things like a complicated supply rule that can be turned on and off would make balancing SP scenarios a nightmare

[Zhivago]

Two points though:

- On game's scale the effect of attacking from the side or rear would be much less pronounced than on tactical scale, or even non-existant, for a number of reasons.

- The game does not show unit orientation in any way visually, so adding this concept would be rather hard. Even if a unit is surrounded by 6 enemies, how to determine which of these 6 units is attacking from which side?

Maintenance and Supply would be two features that I would vote to be added to Panzer Corps 2--perhaps only as OPTIONS though, like weather, fog of war, etc. A land-based unit that it cut off from the rest of its force (with the possible exception of recon units) would definitely have a morale issue. Encircling maneuvers were the name of the game in WW2. Being able to cut a unit off from supply, or reduce its morale by encircling it, would be a great part of a new engine for Panzer Corps 2.

You can cut a unit from supply already with 3 units but I understand you are looking at a more complicated system with roads, supply dumps or something like that. I think it would need very careful thinking so the AI can handle this but it might be fun. It would need to take into account air supply also as it played a big role in some major operations. Im not sure how could morale be implemented? Long term suppresion? ROF limitation? I agree that this should be optional but things like a complicated supply rule that can be turned on and off would make balancing SP scenarios a nightmare

I'm not a programmer, just an idea man and fan of the game giving my insights. However, protecting supply routes, and alternatively for the attacker, moving to cut off supply routes would add a whole new dimension to the game. As you correctly stated, if a unit has three enemy units next to it, it may not be able to re-supply, but that doesn't mean it is totally encircled. Perhaps having supply dumps as a new unit/feature in the game would be a way to implement this. The farther you are away from a supply dump, the harder it is to resupply. Guarding supply lines to ensure regular resupply to your units would now be something that would have to be considered in any plan of attack. I don't think the current Panzer Corps game engine could handle it. This might be something for Panzer Corps 2.