Source
r/coldwarsim•
STAVKA

Suggestion for non nuke-combat

So these objective way of determining battle outcomes using simulators and the like haven't really fit the mold we need, so I was thinking a less objective way was needed (not to say the person doing this would be biased)

Essentially we have a set of multipliers assigned by a neutral "Battle Master" (or whatever you want to call it, I just thought battle master sounded cool) based on different factors present between the two countries.

I.E. Country A has 100k troops and is attacking country B that has 10k troops. Country B is defending so they get a 2x multiplier for a troop strength of 20k. Country B is also more technologically advanced so they get a .5x modifier to their original count for 25k troop strength. So on and so forth until you come out to the final number. The battle master then decides Country A takes over Country B in 2 years with 35k casualties on their side and 5k casualties on country B's side. Country A then absorbes the remaining 5k troops from country B.

A general list of modifiers I had thought of are:

-Defensive advantage... kinda obvious but can combine with terrain advantage below

-Technological advantage, not just the original advantage in 45 when we start, but it would be possible for me to spreadsheet every countries available units and let those countries set aside a certain percent or number of troops for R&D to possibly make Madagascar have the most technologically advanced military in the world after 50 years of closing their borders...

-Terrain advantage (if the country being attacked is being attacked by water they would get a small boost, or if the only available route is through mountains like Italy from the north - and of course attackers could go around obstacles like mountains but it would cost them time)

-Historical context (like if the USSR invaded Poland then Poland would get a surprise advantage because they beat the shit out of Russia when it invaded in WW2) - Then every blue moon there would be a random act of randomness where a smaller force wins against a larger force inexplicably (but very very few times) because every once in a while it happens.

  • Culture, If Japans homeland were invaded they would protect it more zealously than say Ethiopia

  • Common military tactics, If a country attacks a place like Cambodia or Laos or Vietnam the combination of terrain and non-conventional tactics would lead to a draw out war with few casualties on both sides but with overwhelming force could be cheaply taken after a long period of time.

I'm sure there are a few other possible ideas for modifiers but I'm running on very little sleep after a day at a theme park with my sister so I'm not exactly in the creative mood.

I would be willing to give up my number/country and help you with this if you/the community like the idea. I'm currently a history major focusing on military history, so I have a fairly decent idea of the subject and would be willing to put in a little time to do some research on the potential battles to make the modifiers more interesting and realistic.

I'd really like to hear everybody's opinions and or suggestions towards his idea!

*Edit - I'm terrible with reddit formatting so no clue why Culture and Tactics use bullets but whatever

*Edit 2 - I realize this seems like a lot of work, but what I feel should happen is war should be just as costly as in real life while not making it impossible. While there are plenty of diplomatic solutions, reddit is eventually going to want war but hopefully we can make it interesting. I'm sure some people want to see every country go to war the first day, but it might be nice to at least discourage that by making it detrimental..

*Edit 3 - YAY! first downvote!!! Also. I was thinking about the way battle would be started. What I was thinking was we have a battles thread where the attacking countries owner declares war and writes a very brief explanation of his attack and how he is going to attack the other country. The defending countries owner then has a brief chance to explain their defenses and how they would react to to the attack. This also would give the defensive country another slight advantage of being responsive. We would, however, only let these be brief and not extremely in-depth.

*Edit 4 - IF an option like this is chosen I would be more than willing to create a military spreadsheet (After we figure out the entire list of countries) that includes their up-to-date military strength turn by turn, their R&D and military technology level, whether or not they have a navy (part of R&D if they do not start with one) to be able to invade through the ocean, ect. or coordinate with Takarov and or Gilgamesh to do so.

Posted Jul 19, 2012, 12:59 AM UTC · edited

1027
avian_gatorIreland•

My only comment is that we need to keep it as simple as possible while still preserving some semblance of realism. Coming up with a complex system of multipliers based on terrain, culture, tactics and the whole bit might make the sim too time consuming and unwieldy.

I'd suggest a multiplier for defending forces and some way of quantifying the relative sophistication of opposing forces (technology, training, etc), but not much else. I think going much further than that may make it too difficult to implement and keep track of.

We also need to be careful using history, because we are, in effect, going to re-write about 40 years of it. Nothing that happened following WWII should affect the sim in any way.

My $0.02.

6
STAVKAOPLithuania•

I partially agree with the last part about nothing post 45 being used. While I agree with the principle, certain things may still be of use. As a result of the American invasion of Vietnam, we know how the locals would fight if invaded by a superior force, we can use that knowledge to suggest how similar situations might play out in our augmented reality...

2
i_love_goatsMauritania•

While that is an interesting idea, I agree with avian_gator in that we need to keep the game simple or it will never get off the ground. If we get the framework down and run a game, we can always generate interest later for added complexity.

2
avian_gatorIreland•

Not that it really matters, but the Viet Minh (precursor to the Viet Cong) used the same tactics against the Japanese during WWII (with US support, ironically), and the French following that. There is ample historical precedent for guerrilla warfare in Vietnam without involving the war the US fought there.

It is worth pointing out that there was more to the tactics of fighting in Vietnam than just culture. Plenty of other occupied nations with vastly different cultures have fought guerrilla resistance wars. The terrain of Vietnam, the availability of political sponsors and other factors were just as influential in defining the shape of that conflict.

1
STAVKAOPLithuania•

Absolutely. Nothing to say other than I was using a quick example because I was tired and you're completely right lol

2
Fishing_DudeBulgaria•

I like it. This idea really brings in the fact that the real world has multiple outcomes for each scenario

3
STAVKAOPLithuania•

That was my initial thought process. My thinking was that it would be really hard to get a uniform system that works perfectly everywhere, so why try? Make it a system that is based on judgment calls (that are as neutral as possible). Essentially a system that has guidelines (modifier categories) but that would be completely different if you had the USSR invading South Africa compared to Germany invading Italy.

2
TakarovNetherlandic Antilles•

I like this. Though, considering how turns are done, we might format it differently from the scheme of time. Instead of an invasion of a country using guerilla tactics taking 4 years with this many casualties, you would just have each season giving a relatively low amount of casualties on both sides, drawing out combat. Also, for the sake of randomness, we should have the Battlemaster assign a "random multiplier" of something around 1.5 with a margin of about .3 and have him assign it before he does calculations, no one can tell what the final outcome will be. I'll get to work on drawing some of this up when my computer quits freaking out.

3
STAVKAOPLithuania•

Sounds good to me! If you would like any more input from me/ my services as a possible Battlemaster just let me know.

2
TakarovNetherlandic Antilles•

I'd suggest messaging DocWilliams on that one. My question is, though, would you be able to be on every day that allows for combat? If not, still message him. There's always the option of a team.

1
STAVKAOPLithuania•

Ok, will do. I've sent him the basic overview already and didn't get a response, but I shall try again

2
TakarovNetherlandic Antilles•

I meant more specifically about asking in regards to the battle master position.

1
GilgameshTheKingColombia•

This is what I meant by simpler, meaning simpler for all the players. Noone really wants to do crazy math calculations to invade a country.

2
STAVKAOPLithuania•

My thinking was that I would rather them not be able to tell for sure if they will succeed. There should always be that doubt that the invasion might not work. I thought it would be good for them not to be able to know exactly what modifiers would be used except by researching the country they're invading (which is what a normal country would have to do)

Edit* Essentially I was thinking that not all modifiers would be used in every battle so that there would be a bit of second thought before the attacker decided he was going to win if the countries are semi close in power

2
GilgameshTheKingColombia•

Do you want to be my best friend forever? Honestly I feel that this is exactly how battled should work. Simple for the players, because a game is only good if the players are happy.

2
STAVKAOPLithuania•

Only if we can make bunk beds

2
TakarovNetherlandic Antilles•

And even still, we'd keep the modifiers rather private.

1
STAVKAOPLithuania•

The exact nature of the modifiers yes, but I would think for the sake of transparency we should still give a basic overview of what happened (mountains caused hardships for troops stuff like that) and should keep a detailed list of multipliers used in every battle in case a controversy arises.

*Edit - I think i think i think too much

1
i_love_goatsMauritania•

This would be a very interesting game mechanic, as it would cause countries to have their troops tied up in battles overseas, and not available on some turns. So while the US might have 100,000 total soldiers, if 90,000 are in Viet Nam, Cuba might be able to pull of a coup and take over the continental US.

1
wp1218Swaziland•

all good, apart from vietnam being taken by a superior force with few casualties? Thats not how i thought it happened....

1
STAVKAOPLithuania•

No the United States did not win, but it's possible they could have with the full support of the country and government. As for few casualties having fewer than 60,000 deaths over the course of 20 years is a fairly small amount when you compare it to other operations. Don't forget that also includes the Tet Offensive, which one could probably argue wasn't typical guerrilla warfare accounted for almost 17k deaths, but even considering that it was still a fairly small amount of casualties for 20 years of fighting.

2
HatebladeSlovakia•

Whenever a country is captured and has it's armies taken control over, the conquering nation should be slightly more unstable for a few years. Reflect that by them loosing a slightly higher percentage of troops in combat for the few (3?) years following a conquest.

1
STAVKAOPLithuania•

not a bad idea

2