Close Combat Revisited

If we assume combat is as in SupCom, with no close combat mechanic, then you are absolutely correct that Red has the advantage in the above diagram. Keeping your forces together stacks the most ranged DPS-area as possible, and as unit ranges increase the effect becomes more pronounced. It's still a ranged tie, but red has more tactical options and mobility, and has a positional advantage.

However with the introduction of a close combat mechanic that favors smaller groups, this dynamic changes completely. If Red's blob attacks one of Blue's groups in close combat, then Red will lose more than 10 units to kill one of Blue's small groups of 10 units. Doing this just once will cause Red to lose the battle, even ignoring Blue's opportunity to surround in close combat, which would be absolutely ideal for Blue.

In short, you make an assumption that is contrary to the intention of the close combat weapon. You assume an even 1:1 exchange in close quarters. You are correct about what will result if this assumption is true. However the entire point of this thread is I am suggesting that close combat will not be an even 1:1 exchange, but rather that it should significantly favor one side; Blue, due to their more efficient, smaller group size.

You are again correct that now since both sides have the same number of units, it is theoretically a tie if both sides stand off and fight at range. However Red is actually at a disadvantage because, as I stated before, Red cannot move into one of Blue's groups or Red will lose the battle. Blue is covering more space intentionally to restrict Red's movement and attack options.

Red has the assets to make a similar distribution, and should do so. The resulting battle line has both sides limiting the other's ability to cross their line of battle. Adding more units into the equation will make the line longer or thicker, and it makes sense to balance both. Overly long lines are susceptible to breakthroughs, and overly dense lines are susceptible to being flanked and folding or rolling up.

Assault specialists certainly should exist, and we could have an interesting game with only these two unit types. However the specialist assault unit does not accomplish the same task as the main combat unit with a close combat weapon. Assault units will always want to charge into close quarters. While you can use them to stand fast and stop the enemy from moving into their space, it will almost always make more sense to just charge with them, or else hold them in reserve out of the battle until you want to commit them. Having assault specialists babysit your ranged forces is just resource inefficiency.

Mixing assault specialists into your main combat force has a similar problem. Assault units that are out of range aren't contributing DPS. A 50/50 mix of main combat and assault specialists in a single group is strictly inferior to having a group of dedicated combat and a second group of dedicated assault, and have them commit separately. The assault units want to shoot, too. If they die from range without ever firing a shot, you should have gotten another main combat unit instead. Worse, having specialist ranged and specialist assault means your composition dictates your tactics. If you have all ranged, you must skirmish and kite. If you have all assault, you must charge. A mix favoring one or the other will prefer one tactic or the other to the ratio of the mixture.

Having a single unit which exhibits both the main combat ranged ability and a close combat mechanic creates two realms with different tactical considerations, even using a single unit type. Assault specialists excel in one realm, and other units might excel in the other. But units with both have both ranged and close combat dynamics, and the player can dictate their tactics looking at the board, especially where units are positioned, not based on what units they have.

Still not seeing it. I put this image in a table:

Code:

 	  	x1	x2	x3	x4	x5		
 	  	x6	x7	x8	x9	x0		
y	yB	y6	y7	y8	y9	y0	yA	y
y	y 	y1	y2	y3	y4	y5	y	y

Each back row (x1-5, y1-5) takes 1 hit

As pictured, the following hits occur:

Code:

x1	1	y1	1
x2	1	y2	1
x3	1	y3	1
x4	1	y4	1
x5	1	y5	1
x6	5	y6	1
x7	3	y7	2
x8	2	y8	2
x9	2	y9	2
x0	4	y0	2
  	 	ya	1

This assumes some stupid aiming & overkill on the bots part, but ok.

Depending on how vitally damaging the hits are, the numbers are decidedly in favor of Red swarming blue.

Code:

Hits to die		Blue		Red
1 hit		10 losses		10 losses
2 hits		5 losses		4 Losses
3 hits		3 losses		0 Losses
4 hits		2 losses		0 losses

What am I missing? As far as I can tell Red gets the advantage.

What about factoring in cover, terrain and other external influences?

Sure, but that comes after the bare flat-ground 1 vs the other discussion. I mean we're not even talking about how much damage the ranged weapon is - which could be a pretty significant factor!

Ledarsi is arguing though, that by moving close to the group of 10 bots, the red player will take more casualties somehow. And I'm just not seeing it...

It sounds like it might work, but it really doesn't. All you're doing is making an all purpose unit that is good at nothing. It will be outclassed by any dedicated ranged or melee unit.

There are better ways to make concaves and terrain advantages work.

I think you are making a mistake here. Blue doesn't win against the larger red group in close combat. Blue performs much better in close combat than they would at range, but they still lose.

Red still wins in the 50 vs 10 case, regardless of whether it is ranged or close combat. However their win is much less efficient in close combat. If the group of 10 blue units can inflict 10 kills on a group of 50 red units, chalk that one up as a huge windfall for blue. That efficiency loss is a big problem if the enemy actually has equally as many troops.

Consider the case where blue has 50 units in five groups that have encircled red, and are all in close combat with a the red blob simultaneously. Blue wins handily. This is the best possible case for blue given equal numbers of identical units. In the 50 vs 50 case blue can achieve a surround in close combat, and there is no possibility of red doing the same.


Running Numbers on 50 vs 50 Encirclement Case

More generally addressing your specific claim that red wins when encircled if they engage a single blue group in a close combat that is inefficient for them, you are wrong. Even supposing blue never moves at all (provided all their units stay in attack range), if red engages in close combat with any of the blue groups, red loses the battle.

Suppose one unit has 1 ranged damage increment per time increment. "Unit-seconds" if you will. Each unit can fire either its ranged weapon or its close combat weapon in each time increment.

For however long it takes red to close range with one blue group, both sides have symmetrical firepower, and equal casualties whatever they are. The only point of interest in this thought experiment is when the close combat happens.

Red engages blue. The very simplified model looks like this:



All 10 units of blue's group use their close combat weapons, and score 15 hits on red units. Out of red's group of 50, 16 use their close combat weapons and score 21 hits.

Now, the critical point here is that blue committed 10 units and got 15 close combat weapon hits. Red used 16 units and got 21 CCW hits.

There is a deficit of 6 units here. This means blue has 6 units that are not engaged in this close combat which are using their ranged weapons. The remaining 34 red units use their ranged weapons, getting red 34 damage-seconds. Blue has 40 units outside of the close combat which are using their ranged weapons, getting blue 40 damage-seconds.

Using Pawz's hit calculations (which seem accurate, but I haven't double-checked) if the CCW kills in 1 hit, both red and blue lose 10 units in close combat. However red used 16 unit-seconds to effect this outcome, and blue used 10, but both sides lost an equivalent 10 units.

If the CCW kills in 2 hits, the outcome is even better for blue. Red loses 4 units and blue loses 5, and there is a second round with the remainder. Blue's small group has 5 survivors and red has... a lot. All 5 of blue's units fire and hit 2 enemies each. On the red side, considerably more than 5 of red's units fire (depending on which units are dead and where the shooters are) and kill all five blue units.


No matter how you slice it, the close combat inefficiency for red puts red behind in the larger battle. If you like we can exaggerate the close combat weapon to make this less subtle.