This thread is for discussing all things including the army/air forces and how they are simulated in sim reports and in combat.
This thread is
not for discussion on changes to the naval ruleset!
The N3 rules in question (Warning, they are huge!):
QuoteArmy units have four major characteristics:
- Rating: the overall strength of the unit (in the unit ratings, the "X" of "X/Y"
- Artillery: how strong devastating artillery fire this unit can throw at its opponent (the "Y" of "X/Y").
- Morale
- Strength: what percentage of the unit is ready
The basic army unit in the game is one corps, equaling 2 or 3 divisions plus corps-level attachments. Each corps is considered to have a nominal strength of 50,000 troops.
For book keeping purposes, a corps may be divided into divisions or brigades. Divisions are equal to one half of a corps. Brigades are equal to one tenth of a corps.
The maximum amount of corps a country can maintain is 5-7% of its population, but this is at the expense of the economy. Most nations go bankrupt before that.
There are two generic types of army units available, the Infantry Corps and the Cavalry/Specialist Corps. For any given technological level, the cost of either unit is the same. However, the Cavalry/Specialist Corps has less artillery, while benefitting either from increased mobility (Cavalry) or specialized training and equipment (Desert; Alpine; Commando; Marine). The nature of a specific Cavalry/Specialist Corps is specified when the unit is raised, and can only be changed through a formal restructuring of the unit.
The stats for the Infantry Corps and Cavalry/Specialist Corps, their cost in dollars and BP, and their maintenance costs, are detailed in this table:
| Infantry | Cavalry/Specialist | Cost | Upkeep - Mobilized/Active/Reserve |
| Primitive | 2/0.5 | 2/0.0 | $4 and 0.50 BP | $0.40 / $0.20 / $0.04 |
| Dated | 3/1.0 | 3/0.5 | $6 and 0.75 BP | $0.60 / $0.30 / $0.06 |
| 1895 Baseline | 4/2.0 | 4/1.0 | $8 and 1.00 BP | $0.80 / $0.40 / $0.08 |
| 1905 Advanced | 5/3.0 | 5/1.5 | $10 and 1.25 BP | $1.00 / $0.50 / $0.10 |
| 1915 Cutting Edge | 6/4.0 | 6/2.0 | $12 and 1.50 BP | $1.20 / $0.60 / $0.12 |
| 1925 | 7/5.0 | 7/2.5 | $14 and 1.75 BP | $1.40 / $0.70 / $0.14 |
| 1935 | 8/6.0 | 8/3.0 | $16 and 2.00 BP | $1.60 / $0.80 / $0.16 |
Upgrading army units cost is the rating difference ($2 and 0.25BP per level).
Corps can change their type. This takes half a year and costs 50% of $ and BP necessry to raise a corps of the new type and level from scratch. Elite/Veteran status, if present, is lost, but regained after 6 months.
Unit Readiness:
-Wartime: the unit is at full strength, ready to move and fight if it isn't already doing so.
-Active: the unit is part of the standing army, at 50% of its nominal strength in peacetime. Once mobilized, the remainder of the corps is rounded out by reservists. While at this condition, the unit can move and fight, but at reduced strength and capability.
-Reserve: Only a framework organization of the unit exists - the HQ and a few regiments, with the equipment needed for mobilization stored. Only a fraction of the officers and NCOs are professional soldiers, the majority is reservists called up in time of crisis. This unit can not move or fight to any useful degree until mobilized.
Stockpiling
A Corps can be declared to be in "stockpiled status". This means that the equipment for the formation exists, but there are no men in the formation. The idea is that at "mobilization", some cadres are provided by Active or Reserve units, which are combined with surplus Reservists, fresh Conscripts or Volunteers.
The creation of a Corps costs the normal price ($ and BP) for a formation of its type and level, minus 2$ (cannot be less than 1$). Upkeep is 0 (zero). Activation costs half the $ and 0BP of raising such a Corps from scratch. Further upkeep is like for any other formation of its type and level. Time from Activation to combat readiness is half a year (6 months).
Ammunition Use
If a nation is engaged in trench warfare, units at the theater - units that are not engaging in combat, too - consume artillery ammunition, at a rate of 1000t per corps per Artillery rating. Ammunition can be stockpiled, the maximum amount is six months of reserve for the entire army - the total 'artillery' rating of one's armed forces.
1000t ammo cost 0.2BP and $0.2.
UK in the Great War had spent more than 4 million tonnes of ammunition, about 5000t per corps per six month.
Morale Levels
-Green/Reserve: a freshly raised or just mobilized reserve unit.
-Regular: Standing army, or recruit corps after 6 months in wartime. A newly raised corps need 12 months to achieve this status.
-Elite: Any 'Regular' unit kept at wartime upkeep in peacetime for 24 months becomes 'elite'. During war, after twelve months of warfare without horrendous losses, a 'regular' unit can become 'elite'. This bonus disappear after 6 months of reduced readiness.
-Veteran: Elite units after 18 months of war, unless the casualties were very heavy (Great War - like), become 'veteran'. Effect would dissipate after taking heavy losses or three years of peacetime, degrading unit back to elite. Funding cut back will reduce the morale status to 'regular' in six months.
Chemical Warfare
Each single use of gas attack cost $0.5 per corps. Effect depends on the relative gas warfare level of the two combatants. Actual implementation is up to the GM.
QuoteMotorized Land Units
Motorization
The 1900 motorization tech represents the understanding that motor vehicles could be used for military purposes. It allows testing of individual vehicle types in different roles, but has no noticeable effect on the abilities of a unit.
Subsequent tech levels do provide tangible benefits to the units, and may be purchased for those units:
| Generation | $ Cost | BP Cost | Build Time | Effect |
| 1910 | $1.00 | 0.50 | 6 months | Artillery, HQ elements motorized; improved tactical mobility |
| 1920 | $2.00 | 1.00 | 6 months | All supporting elements motorized; improved strategic mobility |
The cost of motorization is added to that of the affected army unit for determination of maintenance costs.
Upgrading from 1910 to 1920 motorization costs $1 and 1.00 BP, as the earlier generation of vehicles are junked and replaced by a greater number of more capable vehicles.
Discarded 1910-vintage vehicles can be recycled for scrap.
It is recommended that players consider a nomenclature scheme to differentiate between motorized and non-motorized army units.
Armored Cars and Light Armor
The basic unit of light armor is the Brigade. A light-armored brigade may operate independently or attached to a mechanized infantry corps. Larger units of light armor are possible. To build a light armored division, multiply the values in this table by 5, and to build a light armored corps, multiply the values below by 10.
| Armored Cars & Light Armor Brigade | | | Cost | Upkeep | | Date | Rating | $ | BP | Mobilized | Active | Reserve | | 1905 | 1/0 | $1.50 | 0.75 | 0.150 | 0.075 | 0.015 | | 1910 | 1.25/0 | $1.50 | 0.75 | 0.150 | 0.075 | 0.015 | | 1915 | 1.5/0 | $1.75 | 1 | 0.175 | 0.088 | 0.018 | | 1920 | 2/0 | $2.00 | 1 | 0.200 | 0.100 | 0.020 |
|
Upgrading armored cars/light tanks from one technology level the next requires considerable additional expenditures, including the full amount that a new unit of that level would cost in BP, as well as that same amount in $. So to upgrade a brigade from 1910 to 1915 armored cars would cost $1 and 1 BP.
Discarded armored cars/light tanks may be recycled for scrap.
Heavy Armor
The basic unit of armor is the Brigade. An armored brigade may operate independently or attached to a mechanized infantry corps. Larger units of armor are possible. To build an armored division, multiply the values in this table by 5, and to build an armored corps, multiply the values below by 10.
| Heavy Armor Brigade | | | Cost | Upkeep | | Date | Rating | $ | BP | Mobilized | Active | Reserve | | 1910 | 2/0 | $2.50 | 1.25 | 0.250 | 0.125 | 0.025 | | 1915 | 2/0 | $3.00 | 1.5 | 0.300 | 0.150 | 0.030 | | 1920 | 2.5/0 | $3.00 | 1.5 | 0.300 | 0.150 | 0.030 |
|
Upgrading tanks from one technology level the next requires considerable additional expenditures, including the full amount that a new unit of that level would cost in BP, as well as that same amount in $. So to upgrade a brigade from 1910 to 1915 tanks would cost $1.5 and 1.5 BP.
Discarded tanks may be recycled for scrap.
Armored Trains
An armored train is classified by the largest gun carried within it; there is usually just one such weapon. The train will also include a security detail and a few light defensive guns.
The cost of trains is:
| Main Gun | $ Cost | BP Cost | Build Time |
| 5 - 6" | $0.20 | 0.10 | 6 months |
| 7.5 - 8.27" | $0.40 | 0.20 | 6 months |
| 9.2-10" | $0.60 | 0.30 | 9 months |
| 10.75" - 12" | $1.30 | 0.65 | 12 months |
| 13" - 14" | $2.10 | 1.05 | 12 months |
Half-yearly maintenance is 25% of cost when mobilized, 12.5% when active and 2.5% in reserve.
If surplus naval artillery is used for the train's main battery, the dollar/BP cost of the gun (simulated as a deck mount, with no armor) is subtracted from the cost of the train as listed above. Construction time is reduced by three months.
Armored Trains are not significantly impacted by technological progress, so do not require "upgrading".
An armored train can be upgraded to a larger size, by replacing the main gun car(s) and possibly adding additional locomotives and support cars. The full cost of the larger train size - less one half the $/BP cost of the original
QuoteMobilization of Land Units
1. It takes one month to move a unit from Reserve to Active status. Once active, it may be transported, and defend at reduced effectiveness.
If the nation has completed the 1910 Reserves Tech, this interval is reduced to one week.
2. It takes one week to move a unit from Active to Mobilized status. Once mobilized, it may fight at full capacity.
QuoteFortresses
Fortresses may be built in a number of sizes. A nation must posess the applicable Infantry tech (listed in the first column) before they can build or upgrade a fortress at that level. To upgrade a fortress's level or size costs simply the difference in price between the old fortress and the new.
When the garrison manning a fortress is forced to leave their prepared defenses, they become 'detached', and their maintenance costs and fighting characteristics become as those listed in the second half of the table below.
Fortresses require one half year per citadel to construct or expand.
Rating Artillery Money BP Mobilized Active Reserve Manpower
1 Citadel Fortress
1880 Dated 0.5 0.5 $2 0.125 $0.200 $0.100 $0.020 2,750
1895 Baseline 0.667 1 $2.667 0.250 $0.267 $0.133 $0.027 2,750
1905 Advanced 0.833 1.5 $3.333 0.375 $0.333 $0.167 $0.033 2,750
1915 Cutting Edge 1 2 $4 0.5 $0.400 $0.200 $0.040 2,750
3 Citadel Fortress
1880 Dated 1.5 1.5 $6 0.375 $0.600 $0.300 $0.060 8,250
1895 Baseline 2 3 $8 0.75 $0.800 $0.400 $0.080 8,250
1905 Advanced 2.5 4.5 $10 1.125 $1.000 $0.500 $0.100 8,250
1915 Cutting Edge 3 6 $12 1.5 $1.200 $0.600 $0.120 8,250
6 Citadel Fortress
1880 Dated 3 3 $12 0.75 $1.200 $0.600 $0.120 16,500
1895 Baseline 4 6 $16 1.5 $1.600 $0.800 $0.160 16,500
1905 Advanced 5 9 $20 2.25 $2.000 $1.000 $0.200 16,500
1915 Cutting Edge 6 12 $24 3 $2.400 $1.200 $0.240 16,500
12 Citadel Fortress
1880 Dated 6 6 $24 1.5 $2.400 $1.200 $0.240 33,000
1895 Baseline 8 12 $32 3 $3.200 $1.600 $0.320 33,000
1905 Advanced 10 18 $40 4.5 $4.000 $2.000 $0.400 33,000
1915 Cutting Edge 12 24 $48 6 $4.800 $2.400 $0.480 33,000
18 Citadel Fortress
1880 Dated 9 9 $36 2.25 $3.600 $1.800 $0.360 49,500
1895 Baseline 12 18 $48 4.5 $4.800 $2.400 $0.480 49,500
1905 Advanced 15 27 $60 6.75 $6.000 $3.000 $0.600 49,500
1915 Cutting Edge 18 36 $72 9 $7.200 $3.600 $0.720 49,500
1 Citadel Fortress Garrison (Detached)
1880 Dated 0.165 0 NA NA $0.033 $0.017 $0.003 2,750
1895 Baseline 0.220 0 NA NA $0.044 $0.022 $0.004 2,750
1905 Advanced 0.275 0 NA NA $0.055 $0.028 $0.006 2,750
1915 Cutting Edge 0.330 0 NA NA $0.066 $0.033 $0.007 2,750
3 Citadel Fortress Garrison (Detached)
1880 Dated 0.495 0 NA NA $0.099 $0.051 $0.009 8,250
1895 Baseline 0.660 0 NA NA $0.132 $0.066 $0.012 8,250
1905 Advanced 0.825 0 NA NA $0.165 $0.084 $0.018 8,250
1915 Cutting Edge 0.990 0 NA NA $0.198 $0.099 $0.021 8,250
6 Citadel Fortress Garrison (Detached)
1880 Dated 0.990 0 NA NA $0.198 $0.102 $0.018 16,500
1895 Baseline 1.320 0 NA NA $0.264 $0.132 $0.024 16,500
1905 Advanced 1.650 0 NA NA $0.330 $0.168 $0.036 16,500
1915 Cutting Edge 1.980 0 NA NA $0.396 $0.198 $0.042 16,500
12 Citadel Fortress (Detached)
1880 Dated 1.980 0 NA NA $0.396 $0.204 $0.036 33,000
1895 Baseline 2.640 0 NA NA $0.528 $0.264 $0.048 33,000
1905 Advanced 3.300 0 NA NA $0.660 $0.336 $0.072 33,000
1915 Cutting Edge 3.960 0 NA NA $0.792 $0.396 $0.084 33,000
18 Citadel Fortress (Detached)
1880 Dated 2.970 0 NA NA $0.59 $0.31 $0.05 49,500
1895 Baseline 3.960 0 NA NA $0.79 $0.40 $0.07 49,500
1905 Advanced 4.950 0 NA NA $0.99 $0.50 $0.11 49,500
1915 Cutting Edge 5.940 0 NA NA $1.19 $0.59 $0.13 49,500
Fortified Lines
Fortified lines are another type of static defense emplacement. They are generally used for static defense against an attacking enemy. In general, their characteristics are similar to their corresponding infantry units, with the additions of static defense elements like trenchworks and additional artillery.
When the garrison manning a fortified line is forced to leave their prepared defenses, they become 'detached', and their maintenance costs and fighting characteristics become as those listed in the second half of the table below.
As is the case with forts, a nation must possess the applicable infantry tech listed in the first column of the table before a fortified line of that level may be constructed. Fortified lines may be upgraded from level to level or added to in length at a cost of simply the difference in $ and BP between the old line and the new.
Fortified lines require one half year per 10 km to construct.
Rating Artillery Money BP Mobilized Active Reserve Manpower
10 Kilometer Fortified Line (Half-Division)
1880 Dated 0.75 0.5 $3 0.125 $0.300 $0.150 $0.030 12,500
1895 Baseline 1 1 $4 0.25 $0.400 $0.200 $0.040 12,500
1905 Advanced 1.25 1.5 $5 0.375 $0.500 $0.250 $0.050 12,500
1915 Cutting Edge 1.5 2 $6 0.5 $0.600 $0.300 $0.060 12,500
20 Kilometer Fortified Line (Division)
1880 Dated 1.5 1 $6 0.25 $0.600 $0.300 $0.060 25,000
1895 Baseline 2 2 $8 0.5 $0.800 $0.400 $0.080 25,000
1905 Advanced 2.5 3 $10 0.75 $1.000 $0.500 $0.100 25,000
1915 Cutting Edge 3 4 $12 1 $1.200 $0.600 $0.120 25,000
40 Kilometer Fortified Line (Corps)
1880 Dated 3 2 $12 0.5 $1.200 $0.600 $0.120 50,000
1895 Baseline 4 4 $16 1 $1.600 $0.800 $0.160 50,000
1905 Advanced 5 6 $20 1.5 $2.000 $1.000 $0.200 50,000
1915 Cutting Edge 6 8 $24 2 $2.400 $1.200 $0.240 50,000
Half-Division Sized Garrison (Detached), Fortified Line
1880 Dated 0.25 0 NA NA $0.050 $0.025 $0.005 12,500
1895 Baseline 0.5 0 NA NA $0.100 $0.050 $0.010 12,500
1905 Advanced 0.75 0.125 NA NA $0.150 $0.075 $0.015 12,500
1915 Cutting Edge 1 0.25 NA NA $0.200 $0.100 $0.020 12,500
Division Sized Garrison (Detached), Fortified Line
1880 Dated 0.5 0 NA NA $0.100 $0.050 $0.010 25,000
1895 Baseline 1 0 NA NA $0.200 $0.100 $0.020 25,000
1905 Advanced 1.5 0.25 NA NA $0.300 $0.150 $0.030 25,000
1915 Cutting Edge 2 0.5 NA NA $0.400 $0.200 $0.040 25,000
Corps Sized Garrison (Detached), Fortified Line
1880 Dated 1 0 NA NA $0.200 $0.100 $0.020 50,000
1895 Baseline 2 0 NA NA $0.400 $0.200 $0.040 50,000
1905 Advanced 3 0.5 NA NA $0.600 $0.300 $0.060 50,000
1915 Cutting Edge 4 1 NA NA $0.800 $0.400 $0.080 50,000
Siege Artillery
A siege artillery battery is actually a regular Army unit which is specialized only in artillery bombardment, and has no infantry fighting power. A nation must possess the applicable Infantry tech (listed in the first column) before they can acquire a siege artillery battery of that level. The cost to upgrade a siege artillery battery is simply the difference in cost between the old level and the new.
Rating Artillery Money BP Mobilized Active Reserve Manpower
Siege Artillery, Battery
1880 Dated 0 0.5 $2 0.125 $0.200 $0.100 $0.020 500
1895 Baseline 0 1 $2.667 0.250 $0.267 $0.133 $0.027 500
1905 Advanced 0 1.5 $3.333 0.375 $0.333 $0.167 $0.033 500
1915 Cutting Edge 0 2 $4 0.5 $0.400 $0.200 $0.040 500
QuoteCoast Defense
Coast defense batteries may be constructed. Guns may be emplaced in turrets, in casemates, or in pits on disappearing carriages. The costs differ for each option according to the table below. The standard emplacement of a coastal gun can be expected to withstand damage from a projectile fired from a gun of similar caliber, with a few exceptions.
In addition, coast defense guns may be provided with 'extra defense' or 'massive defense' emplacements. This has the effect of adding to the amount of punishment that emplacement can take. Extra defense means that a gun can successfully withstand a hit from a typical projectile from the next size up gun in the table below. Massive defense means that the gun can successfully withstand nearly any foreseeable enemy projectile. In both cases, the weapons themselves must be exposed, and are still subject to damage or destruction by a direct hit.
Turrets have the advantage over casemates of a much wider field of fire. Disappearing carriages have a nearly unlimited field of fire similar to turrets, but remain open to plunging fire from above, no matter what protection has bee provided for them.
To calculate the costs of coast defense batteries, add up the costs in $ and BP of each gun equipping that battery, plus the costs for extra or massive defense, again per gun. Upkeep percentages are the same as those used for naval ships. The values in the table are provided for reference.
For example, a 4x15" casemate battery with extra defense provided would cost:
0.75 * 4 = $3 and 3BP, plus 2 * 4 = $8 and 8BP for extra defense. The total is $11 and 11 BP.
Maintenance for the same battery would be:
Mobilized: $11 / 40 = $0.275 per half
Active: $11 / 80 = $0.1375
Reserve: $11 / 400 = $0.0275
It is assumed that any coastal battery includes necessary communications and fire control systems.
Coast defense guns 8.01" and larger require 6 months to construct the gun, and 6 months to install it, for a total of 1 year for project completion. Guns below 8.01" require 3 months to construct the gun, and 3 months to install it, for a total of 6 months for project completion.
Turret Disappearing Carriage
Cost Upkeep Cost Upkeep
Gun Size $ BP Mobilized Active Reserve Gun Size $ BP Mobilized Active Reserve
18.01 - 20" 3.00 3.00 0.0750 0.0375 0.0075 18.01 - 20" 0.75 0.75 0.0188 0.0094 0.0019
16.01 - 18" 2.2 2.2 0.0550 0.0275 0.0055 16.01 - 18" 0.55 0.55 0.0138 0.0069 0.0014
14.01 - 16" 1.5 1.5 0.0375 0.0188 0.0038 14.01 - 16" 0.38 0.38 0.0095 0.0048 0.0010
12.01 - 14" 1 1 0.0250 0.0125 0.0025 12.01 - 14" 0.25 0.25 0.0063 0.0031 0.0006
10.01 - 12" 0.65 0.65 0.0163 0.0081 0.0016 10.01 - 12" 0.17 0.17 0.0043 0.0021 0.0004
8.01 - 10" 0.38 0.38 0.0095 0.0048 0.0010 8.01 - 10" 0.1 0.1 0.0025 0.0013 0.0003
6.01 - 8" 0.19 0.19 0.0048 0.0024 0.0005 6.01 - 8" 0.04 0.04 0.0010 0.0005 0.0001
6" or less 0.08 0.08 0.0020 0.0010 0.0002 6" or less 0.02 0.02 0.0005 0.0003 0.0001
Casemate Extras
Cost Upkeep Cost Upkeep
Gun Size $ BP Mobilized Active Reserve $ BP Mobilized Active Reserve
18.01 - 20" 1.50 1.50 0.0375 0.0188 0.0038 14.01" + ED 2 2 0.0500 0.0250 0.0050
16.01 - 18" 1.1 1.1 0.0275 0.0138 0.0028 14.01" + MD 6 6 0.1500 0.0750 0.0150
14.01 - 16" 0.75 0.75 0.0188 0.0094 0.0019 8.01" - 14.01" ED 0.68 0.68 0.0170 0.0085 0.0017
12.01 - 14" 0.5 0.5 0.0125 0.0063 0.0013 8.01" - 14.01" MD 2 2 0.0500 0.0250 0.0050
10.01 - 12" 0.33 0.33 0.0083 0.0041 0.0008 8" or less ED 0.13 0.13 0.0033 0.0016 0.0003
8.01 - 10" 0.19 0.19 0.0048 0.0024 0.0005 8" or less MD 0.38 0.38 0.0095 0.0048 0.0010
6.01 - 8" 0.08 0.08 0.0020 0.0010 0.0002 ED = Extra Defense: Provides protection against a projectile
one caliber band larger than the gun that is protected.
6" or less 0.04 0.04 0.0010 0.0005 0.0001 MD = Massive Defense: Is virtually impervious to enemy fire
Guns or whole turrets may be reused in coast defense batteries, in which case the cost of that battery is reduced.
When reusing just guns themselves:
Turreted Coast defense battery, reduce cost in $ and BP by 1/6 compared to that built with a new gun.
Casement Coast defense battery, reduce cost in $ and BP by 1/3 compared to that built with a new gun.
Disappearing Carriage Battery, reduce cost in $ and BP by 2/3 compared to that built with a new gun.
Re-using a turret with it's guns guns:
Turreted coast defense battery, reduce cost in $ and BP by 1/2 compared to that of building a new turret and guns.
These cost adjustments are applied before the cost for extra or massive defense is added.
Quote
AIRSHIPS
Classification
Military Airships are divided into 6 types, sorted for size and structure.
Type 0: 10 000m³ (nonrigid), 1 tons military payload, speed 30kts: $0.10
Type 1: 20 000m³, 4 tons military payload, speed 40 kts: $0.20
Type 2: 40 000m³, 9 tons military payload, speed 50 kts: $0.40
Type 3: 70 000m³, 16 tons military payload, speed 60 kts: $0.70
Type 4: 130 000m³, 31 tons military payload, speed 65 kts: $1.30
Type 5: 210 000m², 60 tons military payload, speed 70 kts: $2.10
Building and maintaining airships
Building time is six months. Airships are financed from the military budget.
Construction, maintenance and safe storage happens in hangars. Landed airships are vulnerable to the weather, so they have to be stored in these huge structures if they are not in use. You must have one hangar for every two airships.
If less hangars are constructed, 1 or more airships, according to the mathematic ratio will be subject to a wear and tear ratio equal to the ratio applicable to warships. With the following provision: Airships below 50% can't fly.
Operations
The maximum endurance of an airship is 2hr for every 1000m3 of volume at a cruising speed of 40kts.
Maximum payload can be delivered up to 1/4th of the range. Half the payload can be delivered to 1/2th the range. The payload that can be delivered to the maximum distance is effectively zero. Between distances, payload scales linearly.
Example: A 40,000m3 airship has a payload of 9 t. Its endurance is 80 hr. It can take 4.5 t for a 40 hr flight, or 2.25 t payload to a 60 hr flight.
An airship requires 1 hour maintenance for each hour spent in air. This costs nothing, but functions as a limitation on operational tempo.
Upkeep
Maintenance requirements for airships are high, and they need frequent overhauls. They are treated as land units - 12.5%/25% peacetime/mobilized upkeep per six months.
Airships cannot be put in reserve.
Design Life
An airship has a life of six years in peacetime conditions. Heavy/wartime usage puts much higher demand on the airframe, and degrades the airship twice as fast - each six months counts as a full peacetime year.
Damage
100-86%: Normal working aspects in airships. Doesn't affect any of the capabilities, unless it is visual. This is payed for in the upkeep
80-66%: Range/speed/lifting capacity is reduced due leaks in the gasbags, and wasted ballast or fuel. To repair this, the airship needs an input of 10% of the basic cost.
65-50%: Barely airworthy, capacity lost in range/speed/lift is such that the nearest landing spot under controlled circumstances is needed. To repair this, 25% of the original cost must be spent.
50-35%: A controlled hard landing is the only option, but further damage can be avoided. If the airship survives this crash, a reconstruction is possible at 50% cost, if the large lumbering hulk can be put into a hangar.
34% or less: The airship crashes and is destroyed.
Hangar Cost
Type 0: $2
Type 1: $3
Type 2: $4
Type 3: $5
Type 4: $6
Type 5: $7
QuoteAircraft
Aircraft may be purchased in units as small as a squadron. The approximate manpower of each unit size can be found in the table below. In general terms, "small" is a single engine aircraft, "medium" is a twin engine aircraft, and "large" has 4 or more engines. The Moderators will be empowered to rule where a specific design fits in these classifications. Note that the manpower of air units is counted against per-nation military manpower caps (see army rules for details of these):
Num of Aircraft Manpower
Unit Small Medium Large (Approx)
Squadron 24 16 8 400
Wing 120 80 40 2000
Group 600 400 200 10,000
Aircraft unit acquisition costs in $ and BP are dependent upon the tech level of that unit, as are their maintenance costs. Aircraft units may not be upgraded from one tech level to the next. Rather, they may be scrapped, and if desired, their scrap value used for the acquisitions of new units of a newer tech level. The scrap value of an aircraft unit is: 0.15 * unit's original dollar/BP cost. The player earns back this value in the half-year following completion of scrapping.
Cost to construct air units:
Tech Level Squadron Wing Group
$ BP $ BP $ BP
1906 0.10 0.02 0.50 0.10 2.50 0.50
1910 0.20 0.04 1.00 0.20 5.00 1.00
1913 0.30 0.06 1.50 0.30 7.50 1.50
1917 0.40 0.08 2.00 0.40 10.00 2.00
1921 0.50 0.10 2.50 0.50 12.50 2.50
1925 0.60 0.12 3.00 0.60 15.00 3.00
1929 0.70 0.14 3.50 0.70 17.50 3.50
1933 0.80 0.16 4.00 0.80 20.00 4.00
1937 0.90 0.18 4.50 0.90 22.50 4.50
Upkeep of air units:
Because aircraft are fragile and temperamental machines, it is not possible to maintain them at anything but wartime footing.
Tech Level Squadron Wing Group
$ $ $
1906 0.01 0.05 0.25
1910 0.02 0.10 0.50
1913 0.03 0.15 0.75
1917 0.04 0.20 1.00
1921 0.05 0.25 1.25
1925 0.06 0.30 1.50
1929 0.07 0.35 1.75
1933 0.08 0.40 2.00
1937 0.09 0.45 2.25
The fighting value of air units may be considered using the army unit artillery rating value according to this table:
Fighting strength of air units (in units equivalent to army artillery ratings):
Tech Level Squadron Wing Group
1906 0.02 0.1 0.5
1910 0.04 0.2 1
1913 0.06 0.3 1.5
1917 0.08 0.4 2
1921 0.10 0.5 2.5
1925 0.12 0.6 3
1929 0.16 0.8 4
1933 0.20 1 5
1937 0.24 1.2 6
Airfields
The Most basic airfield is simply an improvised strip, which may be constructed by the aircraft unit planning to use it. This has no cost, but these improvised fields have no permanent support capability. Units operating from these fields must have support from a permanent airfield for doing things like engine and airframe overhauls. Or in other words, while an improvised field can be constructed anywhere, to support a unit of aircraft more than one half-year, a permanent field must be available.
Airfields:
Constr. Cost
Type $ BP Permanent Support Capacity
0 1 0 Squadron
1 2 0.25 Wing
2 3 0.5 2 Wings
3 4 1 Group
Aircraft Unit/Airship Equivalency
Airships and aircraft may be based alongside one another. Airships still require additional fixed infrastructure (in the form of airship hangars). Existing airship bases are also convertible to type 0 airfields.
Airships are equivalent to aircraft unit size for the purpose of determining how many airships and aircraft may be supported by a given airfield according to this table:
Airship Type Equivalent Aircraft Unit
0 1/12 Squadron
1 1/6 Squadron
2 1/3 Squadron
3 1/2 Squadron
4 1 Squadron
5 2 Squadrons
Naval Aviation
Aircraft to be carried by or supported by ships are bought in units just as all other aircraft, and must be purchased separately from the ships they are planned to be operated from. Aircraft carried afloat do not require a shore base.
One thing I think we should do is use the Giant-Ass Victoria II map that is lying around here somewhere (I have a cleaned-up version *somewhere*). that way we have ready-made provinces that would make combat easyer then a map with no pre-defined areas.
The combat system has been a great source of discomfort in N3. All the wars that did occur in N3 were heavily stalled by an ill-defined ad-hoc combat system.
I've stated before that my opinion is that there are two methods of approaching this problem.
1) Eliminate the combat system and rely on scripting.
The benefits of this is that it prevents war stalling and makes the task of simulating a war much easier on the players involved. The disadvantages include a lowered incentive to wage war due to the requirement of trust between opposing players and detachment from reality amongst other things.
2) Very well defined combat system
The benefits is it streamlines the war process, making stalling less likely. However it greatly increases player burden and will take quite some time to define - lengthening the amount of time we spend now discussing rather than playing.
I'm personally of the opinion of option 1 is the way to go, since I want the sim to avoid stalling at the gate. However, if there is significant interest in option 2, we can go for that as well.
I think there is a happy ground between the two. What about a system that deals with simming combat on the highest order (something akin to Risk in style[1], but with some additional elements to fit the world) and relying on the involved players to script anything smaller then the grand overview. This would still allow for unscriped wars, but take the burden of of the simmers to provide detailed write-ups. Thoughs?
[1] I use Risk as the example because it is a simple system for simming very high level strategic combat. Additional items of complexity could be added to apply things like technological level, supply, moral, degree of victory/defeat and other more complex factors without adding massive amounts of time. It could be used to model the outline of events that would allow the rest of the sim to continue on while the warring parties fleshed out the storyline via scripted events.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--_xEDcbR0mE/UIirPQCT1XI/AAAAAAAABzE/PJ-8bL1E_2M/s1600/a100202_02.jpg)
Using the table in the upper left corner, which is from the game The Russian Campaign, I'm positive that we can come up with a simple way to simulate wars at the strategic level using army corps as the basic unit. If desired, we can still build army corps or use pre-set corps because the combat system relies on the ratio of the attackers strength versus the defenders strength. Modifiers can adjust the strength up or down (attaching an armored car brigade to an infantry corps will increase its attack strength by +1, or attaching an aviation unit to a corps will affect the unit's air defense (from non-existent to +1), etc). If you are interested then I can peruse my copy of the rulebook as a refresher and try to figure out some simple rules for pre-armor/aviation combat to start with. We may want to return to a mod triumvirate, though. And also attempt to enlist some additional players.
For those of you worried about how advancing technology would affect the simulations, you shouldn't worry too much because as an army upgrades its units its combat power (scrapping the old two-tier system of combat strength and artillery firepower) increases, and the simulation is run using ratios, so theoretically the combat power of one side in a battle could be up to say 500 against 400 (ratio of 1:1 for gaming purposes). However, one limitation I'd place on the game is that a maximum of X corps can be stationed in one zone for fighting purposes, which would limit the total combat power numbers, so you can't throw 100 1848 level infantry corps against 1 2001 level infantry corps and have the 1848 infantry win because they had too many units and aggregate combat power.
Using some rough theoretical estimates of maximum movement rates for various types of unit over roads, I've calculated some base movement values for units. These are approximate numbers, and can be adjusted if desired but I'm using them more to get theoretical rates of maximum advance to present a basis for comparing different units and also for future modernization/motorization.
This is based on a corps-level military simulation. I realize that army corps are combined arms formations so they will be a mixture of infantry/cavalry, field/horse artillery, and some logistics, engineering, and medical units, but I also rationalized that any units attached to a specific type of corps will be tailored to that corps (i.e. artillery units attached to a cavalry corps will have additional horses to increase its mobility, etc).
Infantry - 3mph (over roads) x 12 hours marching time per day = roughly 36 miles per day. I had decided I wanted a movement value of 4 for the infantry units so I divided 36 by 4 and got a modifier of 9. (I used the infantry corps as the basic unit.)
Infantry Corps movement rating of 4. My theoretical c. 1890s Infantry Corps would be a 2/4 unit (Combat of 2, movement of 4).
Cavalry - 5mph (over roads) x 12 hours marching time per day = roughly 60 miles per day. After applying my modifier (dividing 60/9= 6.67, rounded up to 7).
Cavalry Corps movement rating of 7. Theoretical c. 1890s Cavalry Corps would be a 1/7 unit (Combat of 1, movement of 7).
Artillery - 2.5mph (over roads) x 12 hours marching time per day = roughly 30 miles per day. After modifier (30/9=3.33, rounded down to 3).
Artillery Corps/Division movement rating of 3. (This would be for later, not a unit available at our start, which at this time I presume to be 1900). The combat rating can be determined later.
Logistics units have a rate of march of 2mph x 12 hours per day=24 miles per day. They don't really march per se, the rate is used to determine supply lines, with a 5,000 strong brigade having 1 wagon for every 4 personnel, or 1250 4-horse wagons, carrying 1 ton of supplies each. Each corps is the equivalent of 50,000 men, consuming 3lbs of food daily, or 150,000lbs per day. The maximum distance from a railhead/port/friendly city that a single Logistics brigade can support 1 corps is 125 miles.
125 miles - 10 days round trip. 1,500,000lbs rations required by corps during this time. The 4 horses consume 800lbs during this time, leaving 1200lbs cargo. Total supplies delivered in a 10 day period: 1,500,000lbs or 1 corps.
100 miles - 8 days round trip. 1,200,000lbs rations required. Horses consume 640lbs, leaving 1360lbs cargo. Total supplies delivered: 1,700,000 or 1.4 corps.
75 miles - 6 days round trip. 900,000lbs rations required. Horses consume 480lbs, leaving 1520lbs cargo. Total supplies delivered: 1,900,000 or 2 corps.
50 miles - 4 days round trip. 600,000lbs rations required. Horses consume 320lbs, leaving 1680lbs cargo. Total supplies delivered: 2,100,000lbs or 3.5 corps.
25 miles - 2 days round trip. 300,000lbs rations required. Horses consume 160lbs, leaving 1840lbs cargo. Total supplies delivered: 2,300,000lbs or 7 corps.
Instead of rough approximates, this manual by the US War Department on German forces might be useful: TM-E 30-451 Handbook on German Military Forces (http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tme30/ch6sec6.html)
That is specifically the troop movement section, but there are other sections one as well.
I'm guessing the Germans march for fewer than 12 hours every day. I think everybody does to be honest. But I wanted a base standard. I was also trying to use the movement values for infantry and cavalry corps from Russian Campaign to use as the basis for the system. If you want to use 20 miles a day (from the link above) as the average march per day then you can multiply the movement value by 5 miles per "unit of distance/hex/etc" to get 20 miles per day, and still use the movement values.
Oh, and I wanted to place a limit on the number of corps that can be present within a "hex" or territory. Too many troops in one place and they will simply trip all over each other.
Once again, I highly suggest that we use the Victoria 2 map. That comes with a bunch of ready-made provinces that would make such a system simple. Just be attacking province-to-province.
Quote from: snip on March 23, 2014, 01:04:08 PM
Once again, I highly suggest that we use the Victoria 2 map. That comes with a bunch of ready-made provinces that would make such a system simple. Just be attacking province-to-province.
which would be fine by me, I'm only referencing hexes because that's the Russian Campaign terrain unit. It would work equally well with territories (although imho we'd still need to work out LOC distances for logistics purposes BUT we don't need to do it all the time, just if two countries are fighting a war in the middle of Siberia with 100 army corps on each side and zero logistics support when clearly the region can't support that level of troops).
My thinking is that limiting the number of corps that can be stacked in each province should be limited to about 10. It just makes it more difficult for someone to stack 100 corps in Alsace-Lorraine and attack into Germany (or vice verse into France). You are forced to spread your troops around.
Also, as special functions are researched and added, I was wondering what you all think about adding specialized brigades and attaching them to army corps? For example, when you research battlefield chemical weapons you can now train a chemical battalion (for using gas or smoke) and you attach them to an army corps. That army corps now has the ability to utilize the function represented by the attached brigade. Same would go for anti-aircraft, etc.
My obvious question to the query is:
How would this be represented in the sim report? Remember we are in Excel spreadsheet world, where we can't define objects with private data-types or structs.
The Victoria 2 map (http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/oo219/CanOmer/V2_Political_1836_Sea.png?t=1281611478), if anyone is interested in updating it to our 1900, feel free to do so.
That's an interesting link that doesn't work :)
Fixed
Quote from: Logi on March 23, 2014, 03:39:55 PM
My obvious question to the query is:
How would this be represented in the sim report? Remember we are in Excel spreadsheet world, where we can't define objects with private data-types or structs.
We come up with a cost for each type of supporting unit (chemical, anti-air, etc), and then you just plug them into the spreadsheet the same way we do every other army unit. In the "notes" column just write that the unit is attached to such and such army corps.
I would like to note that a modification to the Army rules is necessary to differentiate between cavalry/specialist or infantry. I believe that specialist units should have approximately 25% less combat power versus infantry (without terrain bonuses being factored in), and that cavalry should have between 50-75% less combat power. However, light and specialist infantry have movement advantages versus infantry (i.e. light infantry get a 25% loss of mobility in the mountains versus 50% for regular infantry and 0% for mountain intantry, same applies for any specialist unit in their native environment). Cavalry should have between 40-50% better mobility than infantry, but approximately half the combat power.
QuoteI believe that specialist units should have approximately 25% less combat power versus infantry (without terrain bonuses being factored in), and that cavalry should have between 50-75% less combat power.
Well, that depends on how you look at it. To me, 50000 men on horses and with rifles should have the same combat power as 50000 men on foot and with rifles (whether they are specialists or regular infantry). This was being reflected with cavalry having the same combat value as infantry but with a lower artillery value due to the need of lighter guns that need to be able to keep up with the cavalry. Perhaps cavalry should have a bit more due to the added power option of the (suicidal) cavalry charge.
You would have to lower the number of men in a cavalry corps to actually justify lowering the combat power of the unit. I think that this would also be true for a specialist unit.
I would think that if you stick to the 50,000 men per corps, with KISS calculations an infantry corps would be 2 divisions while cavalry/specialists would be 4. This would give you 25,000 men in an infantry division and 12,500 men in a specialist/cavalry division.
I disagree with the assertion that specialist units like cavalry have half the combat power. Like Walter points out, 50,000 men on horseback with rifles have the same combat power as the same number on foot.
The key difference is not one of "combat strength" but of cost. Horses are just plain expensive and a mounted division is going to be far more costly than a normal one. That leads to the general trend of having a smaller division which then means less combat strength. The same an be said for other specialist divisions. Fundamentally the idea they have to be weaker is flawed, in reality they are simply more expensive to train and supply/build. Hence I agree with Walter's KISS simplification.
Quote from: Walter on March 26, 2014, 07:14:31 AM
Well, that depends on how you look at it. To me, 50000 men on horses and with rifles should have the same combat power as 50000 men on foot and with rifles (whether they are specialists or regular infantry). This was being reflected with cavalry having the same combat value as infantry but with a lower artillery value due to the need of lighter guns that need to be able to keep up with the cavalry. Perhaps cavalry should have a bit more due to the added power option of the (suicidal) cavalry charge.
My view of the corps size is that an infantry corps has approximately 50,000 men. A cavalry corps cost the same as a 50,000 man infantry corps but the number of personnel is much lower because of the added upfront and recurring costs associated with horses. My guess would be the actual personnel levels would be closer to 15,000 men, with the rest of the money going to horses and specialized equipment that the infantry don't need. Every field gun and howitzer is lighter, there are fewer of them, but they have twice as many horses to facilitate their mobility. It is on that basis that I'd like to modify the combat value (I'd like to do away with artillery value).
QuoteYou would have to lower the number of men in a cavalry corps to actually justify lowering the combat power of the unit.
I believe I addressed this above, the 50,000 cavalrymen is a literal interpretation that every corps has 50,000 men, whereas I believe the intention was to fix the price of each corps at the equivalent cost of a 50,000 man infantry corps with its attached artillery, engineers, logistics, HQ, etc.
QuoteI think that this would also be true for a specialist unit.
Just as a cavalry corps has a higher cost per man, so too will specialist corps. For a mountain corps, the cost of mountain howitzers and pack mules to carry them both limits their firepower and also adds to the cost. Specialized climbing equipment would also add a cost, however slight. In an open-field engagement with a regular infantry corps a mountain infantry corps' supporting mountain guns would be outranged and overpowered by the heaver field guns of the infantry corps, thus providing the infantry corps with an advantage. However, in the mountains, the heavier and unwieldy field guns of the infantry corps would be at a disadvantage against the lighter and more mobile mountain guns.
To summarize, a mountain corps, or any other specialist corps, would have special equipment that increases the cost per man and will also have lighter guns that better allow them to provide support under whatever conditions their specialty requires. Thus, rather than a literal 50,000 man mountain/jungle/desert/etc corps, they will more likely have 35,-40,000 men, with the cost of the remaining 10,-15,000 men that are missing going to extra pack mules, camels, specialized equipment and training required that gives them their advantages in their special terrain.
QuoteI'd like to do away with artillery value
Considering that we have stuff like railway artillery and siege artillery, I would actually keep it separate from the combat value of the man with the rifle, especially if you have an artillery duel in which the regular soldier is not involved and his combat value adds nothing to the fight.
Quotethe cost of mountain howitzers and pack mules to carry them both limits their firepower and also adds to the cost.
Here we go with the gun costs again...
One mountain howitzer and pack mules to carry it is a lot cheaper than one regular fieldgun and the horses needed to pull that. You can't really use that as an argument to increase the cost of a unit.
QuoteThus, rather than a literal 50,000 man mountain/jungle/desert/etc corps, they will more likely have 35,-40,000 men, with the cost of the remaining 10,-15,000 men that are missing going to extra pack mules, camels, specialized equipment and training required that gives them their advantages in their special terrain.
A bit earlier you mentioned "personnel levels would be closer to 15,000 men" with cavalry. What of something in between for the cavalry/specialist unit? For simplicity I would say half the infantry corps number of men (that way you have with KISS 25,000 men + 25,000 horses = 50,000 :) ). Or is that too simple?
I'm going to take these a little out of order...
Quote from: Walter on March 26, 2014, 05:39:27 PM
A bit earlier you mentioned "personnel levels would be closer to 15,000 men" with cavalry. What of something in between for the cavalry/specialist unit? For simplicity I would say half the infantry corps number of men (that way you have with KISS 25,000 men + 25,000 horses = 50,000 :) ). Or is that too simple?
I believe that this echoes my recommendation to halve the combat power of a cavalry corps, and thus sees no opposition from me.
For the specialist infantry though, I believe that they have slightly fewer men, and less powerful guns, than a regular infantry formation, although more than a cavalry formation. However, the type of weapons and equipment they possess gives them an advantage in their native terrain (mountains, jungles, deserts, whatever), that would give them a combat advantage against a regular infantry formation.
So, to provide hard numbers
as an example of how I'd like it to work: (X/Y, X=combat, Y=movement as expressed by provinces)
Infantry (Core unit): 1/1
Cavalry: 0.5/2
Specialist: 0.75/1
In a province dominated by plains/open fields, the Infantry formation is more powerful than the Specialist formation. However, in a province dominated by mountains, the Mountain Specialist formation stays the same, while the Infantry formation loses 1/2 its mobility and 1/4 of its combat rating, placing them on level playing ground.
QuoteQuoteI'd like to do away with artillery value
Considering that we have stuff like railway artillery and siege artillery, I would actually keep it separate from the combat value of the man with the rifle, especially if you have an artillery duel in which the regular soldier is not involved and his combat value adds nothing to the fight.
Whether a battle is an artillery duel or not is up to the combatants involved to script. According to the system we'd like to use to very roughly sim wars at the strategic level, if opposing troops enter the same province then they get into a fight and whatever mod is in charge will say who wins/loses and how many troops each side wins/loses. Railway artillery, siege artillery, and fortresses can all be used as modifiers to influence the combat power of the units involved.
Quotethe cost of mountain howitzers and pack mules to carry them both limits their firepower and also adds to the cost.
Here we go with the gun costs again...
One mountain howitzer and pack mules to carry it is a lot cheaper than one regular fieldgun and the horses needed to pull that. You can't really use that as an argument to increase the cost of a unit.[/quote]
If you don't want that example then let me use logistics... what is cheaper, enough mules to carry enough supplies for an army corps for a day or enough horses and wagons? And also keep in mind, its not just pack howitzers for mules. Its climbing equipment, skiing equipment, bridging equipment, boating equipment, camels will cost a lot more than donkeys, and for jungle units you can't use pack animals at all you have to use porters. Plus the extra training and incentives you have to provide to get men to a good level at operating in their chosen environments.
QuoteIf you don't want that example
I think I said "can't", not "want". Adding to it, with cavalry, you mentioned "Every field gun and howitzer is lighter, there are fewer of them". I would think that that is true for the mountain corps as well so even if one mountain howitzer+pack mules costs exactly the same as one regular fieldgun+horses, the fact that you have less guns in the mountain corps means that artillery cost for the mountain corps is going to be less than that of the infantry corps.
Quotelet me use logistics... what is cheaper, enough mules to carry enough supplies for an army corps for a day or enough horses and wagons?
While I just quickly looked at current prices, in general one horse is more expensive than one mule (especially if it is a bit more quality horse).
If we are to assume that the army corps is an infantry corps, you obviously need quite a few more mules than horses + wagons for the same amount of supplies. But with the mule being a cheaper animal, does that translate into a total cost for mules that is higher than the total cost for horses + the total cost for wagons? Maybe, but I would need to have figures to be certain about that.
Now to look at different types of Corps. Considering that your mountain corps consists of less men than the infantry corps, you'll need less mules for that than when you need mules for the infantry corps because you need less supplies for the mountain troop so I would not be surprised if the costs for all the mules needed for a mountain corps would turn out to be roughly the same as the cost of all the horses+wagons needed for a normal infantry corps.
QuoteAnd also keep in mind, its not just pack howitzers for mules. Its climbing equipment, skiing equipment, bridging equipment, boating equipment, camels will cost a lot more than donkeys, and for jungle units you can't use pack animals at all you have to use porters. Plus the extra training and incentives you have to provide to get men to a good level at operating in their chosen environments.
"Specialized climbing equipment" is what you mentioned right after the bit I quoted so any additional cost from specialized equipment is separate from the supposed extra cost from guns you mentioned and is was this supposed extra cost that I reacted to. I think most of those things you mentioned can be used to justify "extra cost" (*). It's just that the guns don't fit in there.
(*) especially specialized training.It is going to cost money to train the men and it is going to cost time to train the men. Since time = money, that would mean that the training would be 2x money :)
Quote from: Walter on March 27, 2014, 06:02:48 AM
Quotelet me use logistics... what is cheaper, enough mules to carry enough supplies for an army corps for a day or enough horses and wagons?
While I just quickly looked at current prices, in general one horse is more expensive than one mule (especially if it is a bit more quality horse).
Prices from 1899 in the United States. Draft horses purchased by the British Army were $110-125 a head. Mules were $200 a head. Mountain batteries, although lighter guns, require the same or higher numbers of pack animals as a similar-sized (although far more powerful) field or horse artillery battery. Horse artillery batteries require higher numbers of horses, both light draught and riding horses than the equivalent field artillery battery.
Additionally, a US Army standard wagon from the 1880s carried 3,000lbs and was pulled by 4 draft animals. A similar cargo weight carried by pack mules would require approximately 20 mules. Not to mention that the longer the corps is expected to carry its own supplies, the more fodder those 16 extra mules will eat up, decreasing their capacity for carrying useful supplies for anyone else, thus requiring significantly more pack animals to make up the difference than an equivalent increase in wagons would require.
Now, we can continue to argue over minor details down to the precise composition of each platoon, section, and ammunition column or you can either agree or disagree with my general premise that if the units are of equal cost (as explicitly stated in the rules, there are no cost differences between the units), an infantry corps is the most powerful, followed by a specialist infantry corps, and lastly comes the cavalry corps.
Quote from: Darman on March 28, 2014, 11:06:52 PM
Now, we can continue to argue over minor details down to the precise composition of each platoon, section, and ammunition column or you can either agree or disagree with my general premise that if the units are of equal cost (as explicitly stated in the rules, there are no cost differences between the units), an infantry corps is the most powerful, followed by a specialist infantry corps, and lastly comes the cavalry corps.
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/597287/z-formation-snap-o.gif)
I think Walter and my disagreement would reside in the desire in for the Infantry-Specialist-Cavalary manpower to be the same, rather than different as you suggest.
I think varying the amount of manpower in each unit to keep costs the same is not wise. It makes manpower calculations and simming complex. As much as possible we should try to keep the inputs to the combat simulation the same. Hence I, myself, am more in favor of more costly specialist and cavalry units, not smaller units.
We are not obliged to have equal cost army units.
QuotePrices from 1899 in the United States. Draft horses purchased by the British Army were $110-125 a head. Mules were $200 a head.
Okay, that is good to know. Times change and so do the prices. Though I would guess that it would make sense that the British prefer to use their expensive quality horses for the races and the cheap rejects end up in the army or on the fields. :)
QuoteI think Walter and my disagreement would reside in the desire in for the Infantry-Specialist-Cavalary manpower to be the same, rather than different as you suggest.
To me it does not matter that much if those numbers are the same or not. Actually, looking at the TOEs in my WW1 databook, Cavalry divisions are up to 9500 men strong while the infantry goes up to something like 30,000 so it would actually make sense to me if the Cavalry Corps were to be smaller than the Infantry Corps. There is also a bit on an Italian moutain brigade, but no numbers are given there.
Still, it should be kept simple so that would mean 25,000 for Specialists and Cavalry and 50,000 for Infantry. That would make calculations a lot easier than going for some other value though you would have to keep an eye on what type your unit is.
Quote from: Logi on March 29, 2014, 04:17:47 AM
It makes manpower calculations and simming complex.
I have always assumed in the past when calculating the manpower of my army that every corps is 50,000 strong, and to be honest until this iteration of the sim I'd never given it much thought. But when I proposed the table for determining combat it made me start pondering where the combat values are coming from, and the advantages derived from each type of unit. As the basic unit an infantry corps cost is fine. Cavalry corps ought to get a movement bonus, and its really not fair or accurate to make a cavalry unit with the same combat power as an infantry unit cost exactly the same. So to simplify bookkeeping and army creation I figured that just assuming we keep the costs for corps the same regardless of type, and for simming purposes we make cavalry and specialists less powerful in a standard format (i.e. standard terrain: plains, fields, etc). The system that I've proposed wouldn't be too complicated to sim; every province has a dominant terrain type, add modifiers for fortresses, siege artillery, etc (modifiers would be plus/minus or rarely multiplication/division of base combat points). It is literally a case of summing up the points and coming out with a ratio. Then you roll dice. And thus get your strategic results. All the necessary numbers would be agreed upon in advance of the game starting (including modifiers).
Quote from: Walter on March 29, 2014, 06:40:02 AM
QuotePrices from 1899 in the United States. Draft horses purchased by the British Army were $110-125 a head. Mules were $200 a head.
Okay, that is good to know. Times change and so do the prices. Though I would guess that it would make sense that the British prefer to use their expensive quality horses for the races and the cheap rejects end up in the army or on the fields. :)
Cavalry horses were about 45 pounds sterling in Britain, 16 pounds in Australia, 25 pounds 10 shillings in the USA, and 28 pounds in Canada. I couldn't figure out a good way to convert that to dollars in 1899.
QuoteQuoteI think Walter and my disagreement would reside in the desire in for the Infantry-Specialist-Cavalary manpower to be the same, rather than different as you suggest.
To me it does not matter that much if those numbers are the same or not. Actually, looking at the TOEs in my WW1 databook, Cavalry divisions are up to 9500 men strong while the infantry goes up to something like 30,000 so it would actually make sense to me if the Cavalry Corps were to be smaller than the Infantry Corps. There is also a bit on an Italian moutain brigade, but no numbers are given there.
Still, it should be kept simple so that would mean 25,000 for Specialists and Cavalry and 50,000 for Infantry. That would make calculations a lot easier than going for some other value though you would have to keep an eye on what type your unit is.
I can definitely agree to a 25,000 man cavalry/specialist corps, and 50,000 for infantry, although my preference is that they cost the same. I ask if you'd prefer cavalry and specialists to be 1/2 the strength of infantry, or if you want specialists to be 3/4 the strength of an infantry unit (assuming they still cost the same).
By the way, I'd love to know which WW1 databook you have, I've been keeping my eyes out for one but don't seem to be finding any.
It's the one I gave the link of in one of the other threads...
http://www.amazon.com/The-World-War-Databook-Combatants/dp/1854107666
Quote from: Walter on March 29, 2014, 02:35:40 PM
It's the one I gave the link of in one of the other threads...
http://www.amazon.com/The-World-War-Databook-Combatants/dp/1854107666
Oh sorry, must not have noticed it. Thanks though!
Quote from: Darman on March 29, 2014, 02:14:31 PM
I have always assumed in the past when calculating the manpower of my army that every corps is 50,000 strong, and to be honest until this iteration of the sim I'd never given it much thought. But when I proposed the table for determining combat it made me start pondering where the combat values are coming from, and the advantages derived from each type of unit. As the basic unit an infantry corps cost is fine. Cavalry corps ought to get a movement bonus, and its really not fair or accurate to make a cavalry unit with the same combat power as an infantry unit cost exactly the same. So to simplify bookkeeping and army creation I figured that just assuming we keep the costs for corps the same regardless of type, and for simming purposes we make cavalry and specialists less powerful in a standard format (i.e. standard terrain: plains, fields, etc). The system that I've proposed wouldn't be too complicated to sim; every province has a dominant terrain type, add modifiers for fortresses, siege artillery, etc (modifiers would be plus/minus or rarely multiplication/division of base combat points). It is literally a case of summing up the points and coming out with a ratio. Then you roll dice. And thus get your strategic results. All the necessary numbers would be agreed upon in advance of the game starting (including modifiers).
You seem to be missing my point. I'm not advocating same-price same-size army formulations, clearly that would be fantasy. What I am instead suggesting is that same-size, different-price is less complicated than different-size, same-price, which seems to be the mixture you are advocating. At no point do I advocate for same-capability, which seems to be what you are misunderstanding my position to be.
The concept of strength-price is relevant outside of the combat sim, since it doesn't actually tie to heavily into the combat sim itself. Different prices for an item is not a big deal, indeed we do it extensively throughout our ruleset N3 and all the subsequent attempts to replace it. Clearly bookkeeping in this sense and fashion has never really been an issue. Rather the issue arises from off-the-books calculations.
For example, the internal calculation by a player of the relative powers of differing nations, including their own, is made more complicated by different unit sizes. If nation A has 20 corp, and I want to know the sustained firepower they can bring to bear then all the differences in size become smoke and mirrors, confusing attempts to answer the very simple question. If unit sizes are the same, the answer is quite simple. Another example would be if I wanted to determine a force's likelihood of holding in a sector quickly
before any real attempt to simulate the situation. From the get-go and for people inexperienced with the future combat system, it's going to make the calculus a lot simpler to have same-size units. And this reflects the generality that different size units make mental heuristics more complicated for people, especially for those of us that aren't frequently thinking about combat system they are using.
Another point is that the whole different strength approach is self-defeating. If we decide that the fundamental unit of the cavalry/specialist
Corp is 25,000 men strong, we have done nothing but take a
Division and re-brand it. There is nothing to prevent someone from attaching two of these Corps to form a standard unit Corp. In addition it makes the grounds shaky. If specialist forces can have only 25,000 men to play with, then why can't we play with 25,000 men Infantry Divisions instead of Corps? The different sizes in units promotes the reduction in fundamental unit size of all units to the lowest common denominator, something that makes the different unit sizes redundant. If I have access to Division sized units in planning, I'm not going to restrict myself to only moving around Corps... it's clumsy and limits strategic flexibility. Whilst difference in sizes occurred despite similar titles historically, they were not bound in the same way we are bound with regard to war simulation. Hence they could have called it whatever they wanted, without operating only as dictated by it's official title. As far as I can tell, that's not going to be the case in our combat system. And besides the historical tradition, there's little real reason to have different unit sizes if the combat system itself relies only on numerical projections of capabilities, not the actual manpower themselves. After all, if it doesn't really matter to the combat simmer if the Cavalry has 25000 or 50000 men given it's power
within the combat system remains the same, then there's really little reason for the manpower to differ.
At the same time as all of these disagreements, I do think the more standardized 25,000 & 50,000 as suggested is a better distribution, if there indeed to be a distribution, than the previously mentioned three different "combat powers" (which is a more subtle way of saying manpower strength, given the source of combat power).
QuoteAnother point is that the whole different strength approach is self-defeating. If we decide that the fundamental unit of the cavalry/specialist Corp is 25,000 men strong, we have done nothing but take a Division and re-brand it.
Well, when I look in my WW1 data book, it almost looks like that the average cavalry division
is the size of an average infantry brigade (manpower-wise).
Numbers from the book, cavalry division size vs infantry division size:
AH: 7169/21765
Belgium ?/31196
Bulgaria: ~2500/~27000
France: ~4500/15000
Germany: 5238/~13000
Greece: ~2000/~15000
Italy: 4200/14200
Rumania: 5280/~20000
Russia: 4851/21211
Serbia: 3860/19430
UK: 9629/16035
US: ?/28105
With those numbers, the rough average would give you 4500 men in a cavalry division and 20000 men in an infantry division or 17500 if you ignore Belgium and US which have no cavalry numbers. If you assume that there are 3 divisions in a corps, you would have 13500 men in a cavalry corps and 60000/52500 men in an infantry corps.
Infantry vs Cavalry/Specialist Cost: I could see that cavalry/specialist is more expensive $-wise, but I'm not sure that it would be more expensive BP-wise, especially when you 'remove' a bunch of field guns and are 'adding' a whole bunch of horses, mules, camels, or porters which would all have a BP value of 0.
Ignoring my concerns for the moment...
I agree with Walter regarding the cost/BP. Training and horses don't require BP but $ and they also have lighter gear.
How are the numbers looking currently for the Infantry-Specialist/Cavalry, Darman?
How's this as a suggestion:
Primitive Infantry movement 1, combat 2, $4, 0.5BP
Primitive Cavalry movement 2, combat 1, $6, 0.25BP
Primitive Specialist movement 1 (with no penalties in their specialty area), combat 1.5, $6, 0.25BP
To be honest I have no problems making costs different, I simply prefer to keep costs simple, so that we do not have so many different values. The above scenario gives you two different values. If you prefer 3 values then there is also this option:
Primitive Infantry movement 1, combat 2, $4, 0.5BP
Primitive Cavalry movement 2, combat 1, $6, 0.25BP
Primitive Specialist movement 1 (no penalties), combat 1.5, $5, 0.38BP
To explain my premise for the first 2-price option, I figure that the amount of guns and special equipment are the same in the cavalry/specialist formations. The difference in combat power reflects the fact that the additional cash ($) spent compared to the infantry division is going to be spent on horses and mobility in the cavalry division, and while the specialist division has some cash spent on terrain-specific mobility platforms, it can spend more of that on troops to fight (thus increasing its combat power over that of the cavalry division).
For the 3-price option, I just wanted to give it to you. The additional combat power granted to the specialist corps is per its increase in BP as well as the same rationalization given above. My personal preference is the 2-price option because its simpler and in my opinion the reasoning behind it makes sense. And no, I'm not willing to debate down to dollar/pound amounts it may or may not make sense, I'm only willing to debate the overall simplicity-versus-complexity of the 2-price or 3-price options without getting into the nitty-gritty details of how much such and such cost back in 1900 (although I will admit that perusing shipping information from the Boer War was quite entertaining).
If you REALLY want to make cavalry/specialist formations absolutely equal combat power wise, then for my 3-price option substitute combat power 1 for combat power 1.5, and substitute cost $4 for cost $5, and substitute 0.25BP for 0.38BP.
Please, I'd like you to choose from one of these options, if you aren't happy with any of them then tell me. And "I dont like it" isn't a valid argument. I want to know WHY. I'm not going to make everyone happy. If we can't agree on a new system then we can always return to the original N3 system.
How do people like the idea of treating Cavalry as a Specialist Corps? Meaning that Specialist units are considered to be 25,000 men with half the manpower and combat power of an Infantry Corps, but the same mobility. (conversely the Infantry Corps' mobility could be penalized when entering hostile environments such as Mountains.)
Special Powers:
Cavalry - Hills/Plains terrain - 2x mobility advantage (1.25x combat?)
Mountain - Mountain terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.25x combat?)
Desert - Desert/Arid terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.25x combat?)
Jungle - Jungle/Tropical terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.25x combat?)
Marine - Assaulting into a coastal province - no mobility advantage, but they either get 1.5x combat OR Infantry combat is halved performing the same assault.
Thoughts?
For the record: I am in favor of the 2 different value rather than 3 different values.
I prefer Cavalry as a type of Specialist Corp with advantage in plains/hills, as you wrote down.
I would prefer to keep all the modifiers in Specialist Corps and leave Infantry as the base unit.
Hence, Infantry gets no movement penalties or combat penalties. Instead Specialist forces have movement bonuses and combat bonuses.
I think Cavalry should also have movement bonus (but no combat bonus) over desert/arid.
The rest of the values for Cavalry and the other specialist types seems fine. It's hard to tell without experience using it in a simulation.
Quote from: Logi on April 02, 2014, 08:23:26 PM
I think Cavalry should also have movement bonus (but no combat bonus) over desert/arid.
I agree with all you said but this. I think that partially defeats the Desert specialty. IMO, the logistical tail of a CAV corp as constructed for a non-arid climate would not be sufficient to permit much added mobility over a stereotypical INF corp in a arid one. Also horses are not the ideal animal for such uses, that falls to camels, which is something that would not work in the vast majority of our armies without significant back story (Ottomans being the one exception). For both those and the sake of simplicity (one unit type per climate), I disagree with that proposal.
Cleaned up a little bit, and modified slightly.
Special Powers:
Cavalry - Hills/Plains, terrain - 2x mobility advantage (1.5x combat)
Mountain - Mountain terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.5x combat)
Desert - Desert/Arid terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.5x combat)
Jungle - Jungle/Tropical terrain - 1.5x mobility (1.5x combat)
Marine - Assaulting into a coastal province via the sea, or crossing major rivers - no mobility advantage, but they get 2x combat
QuoteAlso horses are not the ideal animal for such uses, that falls to camels, which is something that would not work in the vast majority of our armies without significant back story
I think that with desert units the vast majority of nations would have to use horses due to the lack of access to camels. As for 'significant back story'... I'm sure that through trade one can get their hands on camels and it is not neccessary to deal with the Ottomans (though that might make sense as that will strengthen the Ottoman's position).
I would think that a desert camel unit has an advantage over a desert horse unit.
I believe I can comment on this :)
On Marines, I would say they simply get a lesser penalty, not a bonus. The "bonus" is that they get to concentrate mass and firepower at a point of engagement of their choosing.
As for desert cavalry, I think camels would have an advantage in the big sandy deserts - Sahara, Gobi, etc. But in the arid hardpan, the superior speed of the horse would yield a tactical advantage.
Nice to see the War Dept Handbook's pages. Somewhere in the dim past I posted that info, but darned if I know where, so I couldn't point to it.
As for Military formations.
I kinda liked where N6 was going. I've always felt the 50,000 person corps, divisible to 2 x 25,000 man divisions was clunky and the divisions oversized.
The historic Corp was a formation capable of independent actions - a mini army capable of marching by parallel roads and taking cooperative actions. Generally, Divisions lacked that tail. The HQ, Commo, Medical, QM, Corps Art, any attached cavalry, etc all took up a substantive amount of manpower.
So...if the N6 technique is too detailed (shame, as I had doodled out AH formations :) )my thoughts wander to the Corps has a 2000 person "HQ", with 4 x 12,000 person Divisions (including temporarily attached support units). Brigades would be 6,000, Regiments 3,000. A bit more flexibility & divisibility, allowing better dispersion on borders.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 03, 2014, 09:49:34 PM
Nice to see the War Dept Handbook's pages. Somewhere in the dim past I posted that info, but darned if I know where, so I couldn't point to it.
You mentioned it here (http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,3808.0.html), but the link is dead. As such I went directly to the source.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 03, 2014, 09:49:34 PM
As for Military formations.
I kinda liked where N6 was going. I've always felt the 50,000 person corps, divisible to 2 x 25,000 man divisions was clunky and the divisions oversized.
The historic Corp was a formation capable of independent actions - a mini army capable of marching by parallel roads and taking cooperative actions. Generally, Divisions lacked that tail. The HQ, Commo, Medical, QM, Corps Art, any attached cavalry, etc all took up a substantive amount of manpower.
So...if the N6 technique is too detailed (shame, as I had doodled out AH formations :) )my thoughts wander to the Corps has a 2000 person "HQ", with 4 x 12,000 person Divisions (including temporarily attached support units). Brigades would be 6,000, Regiments 3,000. A bit more flexibility & divisibility, allowing better dispersion on borders.
I agree with you that the N3 Corps were too large for much operational flexibility. At the same time however, we are currently limiting ourselves in combat to the provinces as dictated in the map in the OP.
Darman's proposal is that the system decides the victory in the province. The player (rather uselessly IMO) can decide how the movements within the province were that lead to that decided result. This means we are really only concerned about province level movements. I think Brigades and Regiments might be too fine a breakdown for this.
I rather like the Corp HQ and 4x12k Division suggestion though.
We, IMO, are in a damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't spot with regards to the simming of conflicts. If we do not sim conflicts, then it is unlikely that major wars will be fought as both parties must agree to it. Given the frequency of PvP wars and conflicts in WW and the feelings several players have with regards to the policy there (at ether extreme), I feel this is not the ideal option. Stagnation is an issue here when some parties drag there feet and/or be general PITA's. While on the other hand, if we attempt to do simming down to relatively small battles as they make up a larger conflict, then N3 shows us that things will slow to a crawl in large conflicts and kill off interest in the sim overall. This then lays an effective cap on how much combat can be done before the simmer and non-involved parties burn out. Splitting the proverbial baby, while not the most ideal, is the most effective solution IMO. It still allows for the benefits of both systems while (hopefully) minimizing the negatives. It would be posible for the simmer to write up reports in the N3 style based on the results, but I wished for the player-scripting underneath the sims both to take workload away from the simmer and to give the players more say in the specific ations at hand to avoid any long winded and sprited arguments about doctrine/tactics/logistics/technology/etc.
On the subject of the base unit. I am ok with it being whatever makes sense both size and name wise (I think we could drop to a division of ~12,000 and it would work better given the scale of the map, assuming costs are adjusted accordingly), but it must 1) Be constant for all, 2) Be large enough to allow for simming to be done at the strategic level.
On the province bit, the one concern I have (and I haven't had the time to follow closely) is how terrain and fortifications will play, particularly fortifications commanding chokepoints or landing zones.
Imagine a Saxon army marching on Prague from Dresden...or vice versa. The main avenue is the pass along the Elbe. There's a nice small fortification there. Because of the narrow pass, you can't bring the entire Corps/Army to bear. All you can do is bring up your siege guns and batter at it. Or storm it at tremendous loss- if morale holds up. Now, you can bypass it- but as long as it's there, commanding the pass with it's guns, your supplies are not going to get through, rendering your force much less effective. The odds go out the window in such a location.
As for Sims..
Unfortunately my experience in N3 was limited to
A) stepping in for the last turn of the 3rd Pacific War to provide Dutch moves after the player abandoned the war.
B) Trying to script the Ukrainian revolt with ESC/Russia/AH and Romania. Which was eye opening. There were miscommunications, delays, frustrations, crossed wires, etc.
I'm still of the general opinion that a moderated war is "doable". It's not based on any experience actually moderating stuff...
In my mind, it would be run on a "campaign" time scale. Monthly, or quarterly, with iterative phases. Failure to participate on a fixed schedule (outside of posted vacations/etc) would lead to defensive stands.
Phase 1
Player A would state goals and means of achieving them per theater.
"Goal 2: Siege and Take Trieste : III Corp marches on Goriza to threaten the AH (here just Austria I realize) railline to Trieste, IV Marines land south of Trieste to invest the landward side. XI and XII Corps cross the river and move along the coast towards Trieste, supported by the fleet".
Player B would state goals and means of achieving them per theater.
Phase 2
Mod(s) would then do whatever and tell player B, General Von Herring becomes alerted to large Italian movements towards Goriza and what is the reaction ? Likewise Player A gets more information and gets to respond. A hears theres larger than expected AH forces at Goriza. Decides to push on to Trieste, while B orders a division from Fiume to secure the southern communication route.
Phase 3
Mods would move to resolution. While the Italian army invests Trieste, the marines are rebuffed by the Fiume division and supplies can still get to the city. Meanwhile the III Corp encounters growing AH presence at Goriza and winds up fighting a retreat as the AH strike Udine, sacking the city and turning south, threatening the land LOC for the main army at Trieste. The Italian Salient along the coast has been effectively flanked and is in peril of being cut off. Meanwhile the light AH navy forces from Fiume do not - as the Italians fear - engage in tip and run raids - but rather start aggressively mining off Venice and in the North Adriatic- threatening the Italian Army's maritime supply lines.
A couple sea battles, a couple land battle, no province actually turning over yet, fairly easy to resolve.
Back to Phase 1.
The problems would come if ..well ...me were moding. I think I'm far more concerned about supply lines, terrain etc than most. But with pre-mechanized tech there didn't tend to be quick movement and decisions- even the Franco-Prussian War.
While it is a WW1 databook I have and not a 1900 databook, looking at the numbers in that book, the 50,000/25,000 figures do not seem too out of place. As indicated before, the average size of the division is 20,000 men which is not too far of the 25,000. In most cases, a WW1 corps consisted of 2 divisions and besides the HQ, there will be some other support stuff attached to the corps.
Making a rough breakdown while looking a bit on the GB TOE (which breaks the brigade down into battalions), you could probably end up with something like this...
50,000 men corps = 2x 20,000 men divisions + 10,000 men HQ&support
20,000 men division = 3x 4,000 men brigades + 8,000 men HQ&support
4,000 men brigade = 3x 1,200 men battalions + 400 men HQ&support
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 03, 2014, 11:48:11 PM
On the province bit, the one concern I have (and I haven't had the time to follow closely) is how terrain and fortifications will play, particularly fortifications commanding chokepoints or landing zones.
Imagine a Saxon army marching on Prague from Dresden...or vice versa. The main avenue is the pass along the Elbe. There's a nice small fortification there. Because of the narrow pass, you can't bring the entire Corps/Army to bear. All you can do is bring up your siege guns and batter at it. Or storm it at tremendous loss- if morale holds up. Now, you can bypass it- but as long as it's there, commanding the pass with it's guns, your supplies are not going to get through, rendering your force much less effective. The odds go out the window in such a location.
I think the answer to this is to separate out "decisive battles", things that the war hinges on, such as the siege of a fort. If the simming of smaller actions is limited, I think it is manageable. Terrain can be accounted for by overlaying out province map onto a topographical one to give close enough approximations.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 03, 2014, 11:48:11 PM
I'm still of the general opinion that a moderated war is "doable".
I think it is doable as well, if it takes place in a total vacuum from start to finish. Look at how many people ended up jumping into wars in N3 to see why I do not think that "lab" conditions can be maintained while offering up some measure of realism with other players entering and leaving conflicts.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on April 03, 2014, 11:48:11 PM
In my mind, it would be run on a "campaign" time scale. Monthly, or quarterly, with iterative phases. Failure to participate on a fixed schedule (outside of posted vacations/etc) would lead to defensive stands.
Phase 1
Player A would state goals and means of achieving them per theater.
"Goal 2: Siege and Take Trieste : III Corp marches on Goriza to threaten the AH (here just Austria I realize) railline to Trieste, IV Marines land south of Trieste to invest the landward side. XI and XII Corps cross the river and move along the coast towards Trieste, supported by the fleet".
Player B would state goals and means of achieving them per theater.
Phase 2
Mod(s) would then do whatever and tell player B, General Von Herring becomes alerted to large Italian movements towards Goriza and what is the reaction ? Likewise Player A gets more information and gets to respond. A hears theres larger than expected AH forces at Goriza. Decides to push on to Trieste, while B orders a division from Fiume to secure the southern communication route.
Phase 3
Mods would move to resolution. While the Italian army invests Trieste, the marines are rebuffed by the Fiume division and supplies can still get to the city. Meanwhile the III Corp encounters growing AH presence at Goriza and winds up fighting a retreat as the AH strike Udine, sacking the city and turning south, threatening the land LOC for the main army at Trieste. The Italian Salient along the coast has been effectively flanked and is in peril of being cut off. Meanwhile the light AH navy forces from Fiume do not - as the Italians fear - engage in tip and run raids - but rather start aggressively mining off Venice and in the North Adriatic- threatening the Italian Army's maritime supply lines.
A couple sea battles, a couple land battle, no province actually turning over yet, fairly easy to resolve.
Back to Phase 1.
I rather like this idea, and think it works with what we have already figured out as far as the actual siming of land combat regardless of scale goes.
This thread has been quiet, however I am working on a land combat system for general battle results and casualties. I will post it once it has been tested. Sea battles, I have not been working on a system for.
This is the table for offensive/defensive combat events.
The number at the top of each column is the difference between the attacker's strength and the defender's strength.
| Die Roll | -2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 2, 3 | 4, 5 | 6, 7 | 8, 9 | 10+ |
| 1 | EX (A2.0/B2.0) | BR (A1.5/B2.5) | BR (A1.0/B3.0) | BR (A0.5/B4.0) | BR (A0.5/B4.0) | BR (A0.5/B4.5) | BR (A0.5/B5.0) | BR (A0.4/B5.5) | BR (A0.2/B6.0) |
| 2 | AR (A3.0/B1.6) | EX (A2.5/B1.8 ) | EX (A1.5/B2.0) | BR (A1.0/B3.0) | BR (A1.0/B3.0) | BR (A1.0/B3.5) | BR (A0.8/B4.0) | BR (A0.7/B4.5) | BR (A0.5/B5.0) |
| 3 | AR (A3.5/B1.2) | AR (A3.0/B1.4) | EX (A2.0/B1.5) | EX (A1.5/B2.0) | EX (A1.5/B2.0) | BR (A1.5/B2.5) | BR (A1.1/B3.0) | BR (A1.0/B3.5) | BR (A0.8/B4.0) |
| 4 | AR (A4.0/B0.8 ) | AR (A3.5/B1.0) | AR (A3.0/B1.1) | AR (A2.5/B1.5) | EX (A2.0/B1.5) | EX (A2.0/B1.5) | EX (A1.5/B2.0) | BR (A1.4/B3.0) | BR (A1.2/B3.5) |
| 5 | AR (A5.0/B0.5) | AR (A4.5/B0.7) | AR (A4.0/B0.8 ) | AR (A3.5/B1.0) | AR (A3.0/B1.0) | AR (A3.0/B1.0) | EX (A2.0/B1.5) | EX (A1.8/B2.5) | BR (A1.6/B3.0) |
| 6 | AR (A6.0/B0.2) | AR (A5.5/B0.4) | AR (A5.0/B0.5) | AR (A4.5/B0.5) | AR (A4.0/B0.5) | AR (A4.0/B0.5) | AR (A3.0/B1.0) | AR (A2.5/B1.5) | EX (A2.0/B2.0) |
This is the table that I'm hoping to use for meeting engagements between armies on the move. The numbers in parenthesis are the casualty modifiers.
Differential (Army A's Strength minus Army B's Strength)
| Die Roll | -5 | -3, -4 | -2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3, 4 | 5+ |
| 1 | EX (A2.0/B2.0) | BR (A1.5/B2.5) | BR (A1.0/B3.0) | BR (A0.5/B4.0) | BR (A0.5/B4.0) | BR (A0.5/B4.5) | BR (A0.5/B5.0) | BR (A0.4/B5.5) | BR (A0.2/B6.0) |
| 2 | AR (A3.0/B1.6) | EX (A2.5/B1.8 ) | EX (A1.5/B2.0) | BR (A1.0/B3.0) | BR (A1.0/B3.0) | BR (A1.0/B3.5) | BR (A0.8/B4.0) | BR (A0.7/B4.5) | BR (A0.5/B5.0) |
| 3 | AR (A3.5/B1.2) | AR (A3.0/B1.4) | EX (A2.0/B1.5) | EX (A1.5/B2.0) | EX (A1.5/B2.0) | BR (A1.5/B2.5) | BR (A1.1/B3.0) | BR (A1.0/B3.5) | BR (A0.8/B4.0) |
| 4 | AR (A4.0/B0.8 ) | AR (A3.5/B1.0) | AR (A3.0/B1.1) | AR (A2.5/B1.5) | EX (A2.0/B1.5) | EX (A2.0/B1.5) | EX (A1.5/B2.0) | BR (A1.4/B3.0) | BR (A1.2/B3.5) |
| 5 | AR (A5.0/B0.5) | AR (A4.5/B0.7) | AR (A4.0/B0.8 ) | AR (A3.5/B1.0) | AR (A3.0/B1.0) | AR (A3.0/B1.0) | EX (A2.0/B1.5) | EX (A1.8/B2.5) | BR (A1.6/B3.0) |
| 6 | AR (A6.0/B0.2) | AR (A5.5/B0.4) | AR (A5.0/B0.5) | AR (A4.5/B0.5) | AR (A4.0/B0.5) | AR (A4.0/B0.5) | AR (A3.0/B1.0) | AR (A2.5/B1.5) | EX (A2.0/B2.0) |
| A= A Team | EX= Exchange | | | | | | | | |
| B= B Team | R= Retreat | | | | | | | | |
This table is for each side to independently roll for casualties. Casualties are then altered by the modifier numbers in the table above.
| Die Roll | Original | Alt 1 | Alt 2 |
| 1 | 3.5% | 3% | 2% |
| 2 | 5% | 4.25% | 5% |
| 3 | 6.5% | 5.5% | 6.5% |
| 4 | 8% | 6.75% | 7.5% |
| 5 | 9.5% | 8% | 9% |
| 6 | 11% | 9.25% | 12% |
I've mentioned on the IRC before that this flies over my head. Since Snip is the other main party in this discussion, I'm going to ask Snip do the honors of deciding when to close discussion on this topic.
Quote from: Logi on April 14, 2014, 01:06:01 AM
I've mentioned on the IRC before that this flies over my head. Since Snip is the other main party in this discussion, I'm going to ask Snip do the honors of deciding when to close discussion on this topic.
I think we are at the point where we need something to sim out to see how well it works. I think we can move forward with start-up at this point without really effecting this, with the caveat of any revenge wars/crusades/native oppression might need to wait if they require simming.
The only question I have before "locking" this to further modification until we have had a chance to test it is did we ever decide to move away from the current pricing and manpower for army corps? If no, this topic will be locked until we have results to discuss the combat system with.
Quote from: snip on April 15, 2014, 08:23:22 AM
The only question I have before "locking" this to further modification until we have had a chance to test it is did we ever decide to move away from the current pricing and manpower for army corps? If no, this topic will be locked until we have results to discuss the combat system with.
I believe we wanted to move away from the existing blanket 50,000 men for all corps and move to a Specialist Corps with 25,000 men and an Infantry Corps of 50,000 men (and a resulting situation where Specialist Corps are half the combat power of Infantry Corps).
As for costs...
Quote
Primitive Infantry: movement 1, combat 3, $4, 0.5BP
Primitive Specialist: movement 1, combat 1.5, $6, 0.25BP
I'm also assuming that the basic unit (for now) is the Corps, with a Division being 1/2 of a Corps and a Brigade is 1/5 of a Division. There was a proposal that divisions be made the basic unit, adding flexibility (we get twice as many divisions as we do corps).
1870 Primitive Infantry Division: movement 1, combat 6, $2, 0.25BP
1870 Primitive Specialist Division: movement 1, combat 3, $3, 0.125BP
1880 Dated Infantry: movement 1, combat 8, $4, 0.5BP
1880 Dated Specialist: movement 1, combat 4, $6, 0.25BP
1895 Baseline Infantry: movement 1, combat 10, $6, 0.75BP
1895 Baseline Specialist: movement 1: combat 5, $9, 0.375BP
We've made the change over to divisions as the main combatant unit rather than corps.
Armies still cost the same (i.e. 50,000 man corps and 2 25,000 man divisions cost the same)
For ease of thought, I figured I would put some approximate OTL equipment to each level in an attempt to make them less abstract.
1870: American Civil War era equipment. Black powder weapons. Muzzle loaders and Lever-action repeaters.
1885: Sino-Japanese War era equipment. Introduction of breachloading rifles. BL artillery without recoil carages.
1895: Ruso-Japanese War era equipment. Introduction of HMG, QF artillery with recoil carages.
1905: Early WWI era equipment. Proliferation of HMG, QF artillery.
1915: Late WWI era equipment. Introduction of heavy artillery.
Considering that 1885 says "Introduction of breachloading rifles" I assume that the 1870 "Muzzle loaders" refers not just to artillery but to infantry weapons as well. I don't quite agree with this. While quite a few weapons were muzzle loading rifles, there were various rifle designs like the Spencer repeating rifle, Henry repeating rifle, Burnside carbine, etc. around in that time as well and would be part of the equipment of an 1870 unit. Being an 1870 design, even the Martini-Henry rifle is a valid weapon for an 1870 unit.
Quote from: snip on April 15, 2014, 03:00:36 PM
some approximate
Not an all-emcompacing list, but modified to add Lever-Action repeaters.
Well, I thought it was far from "approximate" ::)
... and I don't think that the Burnside carbine and Martini-Henry are Lever-Action repeaters... *runs away* ;D
On the other hand, thinking of it now, I seem to remember that it was mentioned that the various unit levels was about structure and organization and tactics and stuff and not about the weapons used by the units so I am not sure why such a list is needed. I think it had to do with simplicity.
Combat Results Table
The first number at the head of each column is the ratio of attacking force to defending force. The number in parenthesis is the ratio of "attacking" to "defending" forces during a movement to contact encounter.
AR= Attacker breaks contact and retreats. DR = Defender breaks contact and retreats. EX= neither side breaks contact.
| | 1-5, 1-6 (1-7) | 1-3, 1-4 (1-5, 1-6) | 1-2 (1-3, 1-4) | 1-1 (1-2) | 2-1 (1-1) | 3-1 (2-1) | 4-1 (3-1) | 5-1, 6-1 (4-1, 5-1) | 7-1, 9-1 (6-1, 9-1) |
| 1 | AR (A6.0/D0.5) | AR (A5.5/D0.5) | AR (A5.0/D1.0) | AR (A4.5/D1.5) | AR (A4.0/D2.0) | AR (A3.5/D2.5) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | DR (A2.5/D3.5) |
| 2 | AR (A5.5/D0.5) | AR (A5.0/D1.0) | AR (A4.5/D1.5) | AR (A4.0/D2.0) | AR (A3.5/D2.5) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | DR (A2.5/D3.5) | DR (A2.0/D4.0) |
| 3 | AR (A5.0/D1.0) | AR (A4.5/D1.5) | AR (A4.0/D2.0) | AR (A3.5/D2.5) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | DR (A2.5/D3.5) | DR (A2.0/D4.0) | DR (A1.5/D4.5) |
| 4 | AR (A4.5/D1.5) | AR (A4.0/D2.0) | AR (A3.5/D2.5) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | DR (A2.5/D3.5) | DR (A2.0/D4.0) | DR (A1.5/D4.5) | DR (A1.0/D5.0) |
| 5 | AR (A4.0/D2.0) | AR (A3.5/D2.5) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | DR (A2.5/D3.5) | DR (A2.0/D4.0) | DR (A1.5/D4.5) | DR (A1.0/D5.0) | DR (A0.5/D5.5) |
| 6 | AR (A3.5/D2.5) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | EX (A3.0/D3.0) | DR (A2.5/D3.5) | DR (A2.0/D4.0) | DR (A1.5/D4.5) | DR (A1.0/D5.0) | DR (A0.5/D5.5) | DR (A0.5/D6.0) |
Modifying Factors:
Quality/Morale: I'd like to use the same system as in N3.
Quote
Morale Levels
-Green/Reserve: a freshly raised or just mobilized reserve unit.
-Regular: Standing army, or recruit corps after 6 months in wartime. A newly raised corps need 12 months to achieve this status.
-Elite: Any 'Regular' unit kept at wartime upkeep in peacetime for 24 months becomes 'elite'. During war, after twelve months of warfare without horrendous losses, a 'regular' unit can become 'elite'. This bonus disappear after 6 months of reduced readiness.
-Veteran: Elite units after 18 months of war, unless the casualties were very heavy (Great War - like), become 'veteran'. Effect would dissipate after taking heavy losses or three years of peacetime, degrading unit back to elite. Funding cut back will reduce the morale status to 'regular' in six months.
During combat, if one side has an advantage in morale levels, then for each level in difference the higher morale unit gains 10% of its base combat power.
Entrenchments and Field Fortifications: In the sim that snip, Logi, and I are currently running to test the combat system, we are using turns measured in weeks. After 1 week spent entrenching, a unit should have completed sufficient fieldworks and fortifications to gain a significant edge in combat power when on the defensive. As soon as the unit leaves its works, they are considered destroyed unless another unit is occupying them immediately. I figured that after 1 full week entrenching and digging in, the unit should gain 25% of its base combat power.
If two opposing units are entrenched immediately adjacent to each other and are both acting defensively, an artillery duel ensues and combat is determined using the movement to contact table. However, the movement results (attacker/defender retreats) are ignored and only casualties are considered.
Scouting/Reconnaissance: Cavalry units can be assigned reconnaissance roles, combat power is halved (the units are so scattered they can be defeated in detail) but casualties are also cut in half (same reason, the units are tasked with scouting, less likely to be caught unawares and also because they are scattered, they are harder to defeat all of them), additionally, cavalry movement is reduced by 1/4 to reflect that they are not in columns but instead are scattered. However, two units both scouting are treated as a movement to contact.
As I come up with more I'll post them.
Edit 23:54h 4/20/2014
Added the reduction of cavalry movement during scouting operations by 25%.
Pending the results of our practice campaign, I am locking this topic.