Lengthen combat to broaden combat Fronts?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Lengthen combat to broaden combat Fronts?

      Folks,

      Has this (below) been discussed in the past? I did a little searching (but I really couldn't think of good search terms) and didn't find anything.

      The game symptom I was thinking about was that when I fight a public-game CoN opponent (usually using by attacking them with my Planes) the war is usually over before they even respond by giving orders to their units.

      While that's good for my win/loss record, it's definitely isn't what I would expect during a real WW3 war, or what I think I want in a game.

      Also, melee battles don't really occur across a shifting front, instead they seem more likely to involve a clash of a few stacks followed soon after by the total collapse of one side or the other.

      So, I wondered if slowing down the pace of combat (maybe by reducing each unit's Atk/Def by 75%, while leaving their HPs unchanged) in order to give defenders more time to shift units around and otherwise organize defenses and counter-attacks would change the nature of melee battles in a good way.

      Would land combat start occurring across broad multi-province fronts and would planes/helos become less able to simply erase most ground units before the defender can respond (with a result that amplifies what I described in the previous sentence)?

      My hope would be that an adjustment of this type (plus whatever else is needed to keep things from going off the rails) might keep players active more/longer because they would be less likely to give up (because they become less likely to be automatically doomed) if someone attacks them while they are AFK for a few hours.

      Would slowing down the pace of combat, without slowing the pace of movement and production lead to more interesting (strategic), broad-front wars; and to fewer games that are essentially a fait accompli by Day 30?
    • Ya this could be very good... longer battle fronts = better military score!

      Longer battle fronts could be fun... Having your enemy or yourself call it quits and commits suicide in his fuhrer bunker... sucks.

      I just learned how to use melee efficiently in an alliance game, but when I learned the tactic I could rarely use it because they enemy would infact call it quits.

      My air battles would mainly be air to ground flash-points, so I never really sprung for air superiority... so when I use strike fighters... the enemy would leave 2 troops and a S.A.M in all cities then leave just to annoy the offence.
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris
    • I want fronts for Riga, Latvia to Odessa, Ukraine... that lasts 7-15 days... with a 25-40 varied units.

      Not war fronts from Berlin, Germany to Leipzig, Germany that last 1-3 days... not with 7-19 singular unit type.
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris
    • The Destroyer 4 wrote:

      I want . . .
      OK - So some of us agree (I think) about a direction we would like to see the game evolve.

      But, the question isn't what we want. Writing about that is way down the list of things-that-are-useful.

      The question is whether the change I described is the kernel of an idea that would actually create that change, or if it would just screw things up.

      I'm curious if any of the folks who have been around since the 2017 days (or close enough) (Not me, not you) or who have played other games can give us an informed opinion, instead of speculation.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by KFGauss ().

    • Frankly I dont see it having any real effect beyond making combat more of a grind (and maybe increase the use of Missiles for burst dmg); definitely not more „broad“ fronts. Imo wrong approach if thats the goal, because even with lower dmg, stacking units (and thus concentrating them in a few places instead of a broad front) would still be the best thing to do.

      If your issue as described is with decisive battles not only occurring too fast but also being won too fast, then the problem is more that you dont have that many units in the first place (maybe in the lategame) and even less if you focus on „meta“ units like support.
      Reducing the damage would not really help much in that regard then because now it just becomes a „pin down enemy unit with garbage and then move around and get homeland“; and with the total amount of units staying the same you haven’t really changed the amount of „decisive“ battles.

      Reducing movement speed would probably have a far bigger impact in terms of giving defenders more time to react. (Tho there already is a 1/3 penalty to speed in hostile terrain).
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • playbabe wrote:

      well radar and buffer land is for that purpose.

      Teburu wrote:

      Frankly I dont see it having any real effect beyond making combat more of a grind (and maybe increase the use of Missiles for burst dmg); definitely not more „broad“ fronts. Imo wrong approach if thats the goal, because even with lower dmg, stacking units (and thus concentrating them in a few places instead of a broad front) would still be the best thing to do.

      If your issue as described is with decisive battles not only occurring too fast but also being won too fast, then the problem is more that you dont have that many units in the first place (maybe in the lategame) and even less if you focus on „meta“ units like support.
      Reducing the damage would not really help much in that regard then because now it just becomes a „pin down enemy unit with garbage and then move around and get homeland“; and with the total amount of units staying the same you haven’t really changed the amount of „decisive“ battles.

      Reducing movement speed would probably have a far bigger impact in terms of giving defenders more time to react. (Tho there already is a 1/3 penalty to speed in hostile terrain).
      OK - Points taken - I'm trying to identify the crucial differences between this game and others I've played (mostly paper hex-map sorts of games) in which the pace and width of advances was different.

      I agree that Radar and land buffers work well for many purposes and can help with what I'm talking about, but they really don't stop my wars with other countries from usually feeling more like a first-person-shooter duel than grand-strategic wars. Part of that comes from me using lots of air power, part comes from other reasons.

      Having enough units would be part of what I meant when I wrote "plus whatever else is needed to keep things from going off the rails".

      I can see what you (Teb) mean about (further) reducing (ground) attacker speeds when in enemy territory to help change (in the direction we're discussing) how wars play out.

      I'm going to continue to mull this over - If anyone has some good ideas while I'm doing that, please speak up.

      I think my next step is trying to write down the different "inputs" Dorado could adjust if they care to experiment with some changes. These would be things like the enemy-territory-speed-reduction, or the typical units' Atk/Def-to-HP ratios, or the distance an-attacking-column capturing a trail-of-provinces that's only only one-province-wide can travel, or ...
    • KFGauss wrote:

      playbabe wrote:

      well radar and buffer land is for that purpose.

      Teburu wrote:

      Frankly I dont see it having any real effect beyond making combat more of a grind (and maybe increase the use of Missiles for burst dmg); definitely not more „broad“ fronts. Imo wrong approach if thats the goal, because even with lower dmg, stacking units (and thus concentrating them in a few places instead of a broad front) would still be the best thing to do.

      If your issue as described is with decisive battles not only occurring too fast but also being won too fast, then the problem is more that you dont have that many units in the first place (maybe in the lategame) and even less if you focus on „meta“ units like support.
      Reducing the damage would not really help much in that regard then because now it just becomes a „pin down enemy unit with garbage and then move around and get homeland“; and with the total amount of units staying the same you haven’t really changed the amount of „decisive“ battles.

      Reducing movement speed would probably have a far bigger impact in terms of giving defenders more time to react. (Tho there already is a 1/3 penalty to speed in hostile terrain).
      OK - Points taken - I'm trying to identify the crucial differences between this game and others I've played (mostly paper hex-map sorts of games) in which the pace and width of advances was different.
      I agree that Radar and land buffers work well for many purposes and can help with what I'm talking about, but they really don't stop my wars with other countries from usually feeling more like a first-person-shooter duel than grand-strategic wars. Part of that comes from me using lots of air power, part comes from other reasons.

      Having enough units would be part of what I meant when I wrote "plus whatever else is needed to keep things from going off the rails".

      I can see what you (Teb) mean about (further) reducing (ground) attacker speeds when in enemy territory to help change (in the direction we're discussing) how wars play out.

      I'm going to continue to mull this over - If anyone has some good ideas while I'm doing that, please speak up.

      I think my next step is trying to write down the different "inputs" Dorado could adjust if they care to experiment with some changes. These would be things like the enemy-territory-speed-reduction, or the typical units' Atk/Def-to-HP ratios, or the distance an-attacking-column capturing a trail-of-provinces that's only only one-province-wide can travel, or ...
      Question: How unrealistic do you want to go in terms of ideas? Cuz one idea that comes to mind is something akin to a grace period like in for example clash of clans; maybe force some time between declaring war and the first attack?
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • What about a province building that could force the enemy troops to be slowed down and/or take hour/s to be captured at the province center? It would basically represent scorched earth, hampered logistics, local resistance, and/or other obstacles meant to slow down an enemy force.

      Such a building could already be present on all perimeter border provinces at the start of the game.


      This could theoretically create a niche for such units as airmobile infantry and mechanized infantry.
      I am Aeneas, duty-bound and known above high air of heaven by my fame, carrying with me in my ships our gods of hearth and home, saved from the foe. I look for Italy to be my fatherland, and my descent is from all-highest Jove.
    • Teburu wrote:

      Question: How unrealistic do you want to go in terms of ideas? Cuz one idea that comes to mind is something akin to a grace period like in for example clash of clans; maybe force some time between declaring war and the first attack?
      Yeah . . .

      Well - If the thread had a different purpose/title, I'd say that's on the table (would Dorado ever consider doing it???).

      But I think you've already caught on that what I'm really after is (suggesting) a way to make the war that occurs more just a send-one-or-two-doom-stacks followed by bang-you're-dead-in-two-to-six-hours fight.

      Giving the defender some time to prepare would help, but the quick-and-narrow-front instead of a broad-front "problem" would still be with us.
    • Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      What about a province building that could force the enemy troops to be slowed down and/or take hour/s to be captured at the province center? It would basically represent scorched earth, hampered logistics, local resistance, and other obstacles meant to slow down an enemy force.

      Such a building could already be present on all perimeter border provinces at the start of the game.


      This could theoretically create a niche for such units as airmobile infantry and mechanized infantry.
      Yep - That would increase the "friction" attackers have to deal with.

      But, if a ring of those buildings could be (only needed to be) pierced at one point for an attacker to be able then rampage through the defender's interior, that wouldn't help with the other half of what's on my mind.

      What you've suggested there is fairly similar to Teb's mention of the speed penalty attackers pay when in enemy territory (until they capture each province center as they advance).

      Increasing the penalty would obviously slow ground attackers' advances (good - I think), but it wouldn't push them toward operating across a broader front (still needed - I think).

      A change that would making it naturally useful/necessary to operate across broader fronts is at least half of what I'm trying figure out, and that is probably the harder part to figure out.
    • KFGauss wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Question: How unrealistic do you want to go in terms of ideas? Cuz one idea that comes to mind is something akin to a grace period like in for example clash of clans; maybe force some time between declaring war and the first attack?
      Yeah . . .
      Well - If the thread had a different purpose/title, I'd say that's on the table (would Dorado ever consider doing it???).

      But I think you've already caught on that what I'm really after is (suggesting) a way to make the war that occurs more just a send-one-or-two-doom-stacks followed by bang-you're-dead-in-two-to-six-hours fight.

      Giving the defender some time to prepare would help, but the quick-and-narrow-front instead of a broad-front "problem" would still be with us.
      Honestly? I think that anything that introduces new mechanics is quite unrealistic to expect to actually be implemented.
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      Honestly? I think that anything that introduces new mechanics is quite unrealistic to expect to actually be implemented.
      Understood.

      This is the sort of thing I like to think through so that I can match my playing style to what is in the game (instead of what I subconsciously think should be in the game), and so that I can reply intelligently when other players bring up questions or suggestions that are connected to the topic.

      If Dorado made a big change, saying I would be surprised is an understatement.
    • KFG - I don’t know if you thought about this, but reducing the ATK/DEF values by 75% would make battles take 4 times longer, which would in turn increase the average length of a game drastically.

      And another thing: this would make taking over inactive countries painfully long, an easy process to begin with.
      "CoN is a game of 80% skill and 20% luck" - Tifo_14

      "I don't get paid enough to do anything" - Germanico

      Nothing stops the Tifo :thumbup:
    • Tifo_14 wrote:

      KFG - I don’t know if you thought about this, but reducing the ATK/DEF values by 75% would make battles take 4 times longer, which would in turn increase the average length of a game drastically.

      And another thing: this would make taking over inactive countries painfully long, an easy process to begin with.
      Yeah - I thought about exactly that.

      It wouldn't make a game 4X longer (at least not my games) because I don't come close to fighting continuously (Currently planes spend 2-6 hours wiping out defendants, overlapped with ground troops spending 12-24 hours absorbing the empty territories) - Regardless, I agree that It probably would make wars against active-opponents longer by some amount.

      And . . . Longer wars against active opponents is part of the intent (bang-your-dead blitzes aren't much fun and don't allow the opponent to employ any non-trivial reactions to the assault).

      75% is a large change that I chose for dramatic emphasis - The actual change would be determined by experimentation.
    • Although I agree I’m hesitant to go away from ending games in a month to ending games in possibly a month and few more days…

      but it’ll probably benefit melee players more and early game becomes more intense because of this, which means retreating will become more popular if a person realise his flanks were not secured or he needed to defence destroy that stack that was attacking him before the other offensive enemy stack came into play and greatly out number him, being unable to gain back his investment in those defending units.

      But then again for most experienced players the main form of combat remains mainly on Airforce which engages in melee for a few seconds (direct attack) and 1s (patrol attack)
      So I really think this suggestion would only impact Early gameplay for enemy advanced and defences.
    • I dont think this will help. I will cause smart player to trap your units with bait and take your homeland cities in the meantime
      what you experience/observe is the total lack of realism. Players take big risks. the do a doomstack and send of all units for an attack.

      maybe because they want action or something must burn or whatever mentality. this wouldnt happen in reallife. noone is burning his whole army in 1 attack.

      an other point is airforce. it benefits the active player. giving him a chance to sniper the enemy units while enemy is afk.

      tje total lack of giving your soldiers to execute orders wjile you are afl/ sleep is zhe real problem you face.

      and to be honest. I prefer one big clash battle instead of having to scout the whole territory for lose/single infantry.
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.
    • Do I think this would ever happen? I would bet no as it is a HUGE change in the nature of the game.

      On the other hand, Civilization went from CON style stacks of doom (not even limited by 10 melee units per stack) to 1 unit per hex. It changed the game considerably.

      In a lot of ways the game was much much better. Instead of the winner being who has the biggest stack, it becomes ... well a lot more like real life warfare. GIving units zones of control is a way of making combat more interesting in Civilization - since that is kind of unpractical in CON, a way to kind of make this happen would be to have fewer provinces (especially in, for example, Minnesota in the BUSA map which has a very large number of small provinces). This would allow 3 or 4 stacks of units in defensive positions to be somewhat viable.

      The danger in CON style of play is that it can become too explosive, with the defender being dead too quickly, and the best way to deal with a big stack coming to your cities, where he has a choice of cities to attack, is not to try to defend but to send your own stack of doom into HIS home cities, leading to the end of both parties. Big stacks can march though a lot of territory before finally being destroyed. In the kind of game you are talking about, the danger is that games become too static, where defensive lines are impossible to break through.

      I would love it if the developers went down this path in some smallish ways, like what you are describing. But it is a HUGE HUGE HUGE change. It would be very expensive for the developers to make this happen. And has been pointed out - to make this work would require each side to have quite a few more units (or quite a few less total provinces), which then leads to another whole set of design issues.