Grand Strategy Combat - Adding Depth

As a fan of grand strategy games in general, what do you think are some of the ways this genre could add an additional layer of tactical depth to combat outside of terrain modifiers that wouldn't create micromanagement nightmares for larger entities? To clarify, I'm thinking more along the lines of EU4 & CK2 games, HoI series and other turn based war games have sufficient tactical depth.

The biggest flaws I find is that typically the combat is just a mash of number calculations where, for the most part, the army with the highest number of units to begin with wins. There is some variation with positioning on terrain, entrenchment, morale, etc... but there is very little possibility for underdog moments unless the larger entity is just flat out incompetent, so I often find smaller entities get steamrolled. I suppose the idea is that smaller entities have less to work with and have more time to manage the tactical depth that larger entities could leave to say generalized templates to some how even the playing field. Similar to how generals of larger armies tend to be more wasteful of units than smaller armies might be.

Balancing what works for smaller entities but doesn't become micromanagement hell for larger entities is certainly a tough nut to crack. Any thoughts on this would be great.

 

If you don't want to have a number vs number game, always add RNG to balance it out.
Heck you could make a mechanic where if your army is within a distance of a certain unit and within that army's range there are more enemy units, make some buff called "Last stand" that gives them more health or damage.

Off the top of my head, you can add crit, dodge, or even a recycle mechanic. If enough units die, you get a buff or whatever.

Another layer from Divinity 2 was adding combos in tactical games. Use oil, then fire and you get bonus damage. Use water and then electricity for a stun effect. I dunno how your game is set but looking at those mechanics could help.
Finally a rock-paper-scissor in the AOE 2 style. Archers have bonus against infantry and are weak to skirmishers, and so on.

Are these applicable to your game?

 

I'm a fan of RNG to an extent and it exists in the Paradox game examples, however while peeling back their layers reveals complexity and depth, the only thing players can really control efficiently among all the politics & economics is ensuring their army is bigger than the enemy army.

I like your idea of the "last stand" component, maybe creating a "power level" variable behind the scenes and when two countries of X% difference fight, the lesser powerful nation gets bonuses. Sort of a simplistic representation of guerrilla tactics so they take less losses, do some more damage, and/or take more time for the battle to be done. This would help counterbalance some of the steamrolling.

Combo mechanics could work, unit compositions together creating extra bonuses, though one has to think hard how to both balance it and ensure it doesn't get lost in the complexity. Rock Paper Scissors is certainly part of it, but maybe the depth could be like unit X + unit Y together create Z% bonus under certain conditions. The difficulty is that grand strategy combat does have to be a bit more simplified as one typically needs to manage economic, logistics, & politics at the same time.

I appreciate your thoughts on this, some of your ideas can be applicable though the devils in details, both the math equation & player experience.

 

The main problem I see is that all the major decision (prior to the battle) are set, then we look at the result. Tactical depth would mean adapt on the fly during the battle (ie many turns). But for a raw game design perspective it's a production problem. Instead of evaluating how the battle are won first, we could create intermediary data that set the final result.

For example, what if we could influence how long a battle will last, for example let say you have weak units but they increase their strength in an exponential curve, but the enemy do that at linear pace, you have a breaking point where you win if the battle last long enough, before that you won't create enough potential to win, now every variable that move that breakpoint become tactical, ie the terrain, the unit composition, the length of battle, just to ensure that breakpoint happen before the calculated time limit.

Now imagine that you design all your battle as curve maximizing, so that you try to create condition so that evolution of curve is at your own advantage, ie that you are above the potential of you enemy when the time run out, you would get something more subtle than comparing raw number, you have to actually project yourself into how stuff will evolve during the timespan of the battle.

That goes with guerilla tactics, a lot of them is about managing curve of the enemy (like moral) long enough so that the potential drop below a point where you can overtake them (making them flee, or let the them become ill and fatigue, etc ...). Another way to make guerilla is to have "knowledge of the land", that is some option specific to the place are only available to army having unit who know the land, like shortcut, dam to break, knowledge of native edible food, shelter, or even population support.

Meanwhile the enemy could have "policy" like destroying population (ie denying population support) that are counter to these potential knowledge (although he don't know which one you are using now), this could work like a rps, but instead of deciding the victory in a straight fashion, you manage the curve, which mean that even a good decision can still not be enough to win.

 

You're absolutely right which means all tactical decisions for a battle are made beforehand as one set's the stage and the AI auto-calculates it out. Dominions series & Stronghold Kingdoms does it this way and I'm sure there are others.

I do really like where you went with using the time in battle as a variable that units are influenced by. Sort of like units in a battle rage do a lot of damage at first, but then taper off and ultimately become vulnerable. Defensive units don't do much killing at first but then ramp up later. Really really solid idea to add some tactical choices. Large countries may not play to it much as they'd just pick core units that are on average dependable to manage other things, while smaller countries will really focus on optimizing that curve for their advantage since they have less to manage.

The policy section is interesting and probably best done by having only defensive bonuses to a smaller country on home turf that's not captured yet. That might be the most intuitive way to add it at first.

 

Paradox's EU4 has considerably more combat depth than you give it credit for. A failing is EU4 doesn't effectively communicate what is happening to the player, and you're forced to search through wikis to see exactly how it works and how to maximize the composition and effectiveness of your armies.

 

I completely agree though in the end, all that complexity doesn't amount to much that can be efficiently managed or it boils down to a couple core ideas. CK2 for example, has different phase of battle, unique events that can trigger, etc... but ultimately the best & efficient route is to build heavy infantry and just have more #'s that the opposing army to win.