Ideas for Better Battlegroups by AVP

Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply

Would a mission system for battlegroups, as detailed below, be a welcomed change in SR2030?

No votes
Total votes: 7
Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 10 2019
Human: Yes

Ideas for Better Battlegroups by AVP

Post by AVP »

Ideas for Better Battlegroups
Read Time: 3 minutes

First, to the developers, I'd like to say that I'm happy to see the changes made to the Battlegroup System since SRU. What used to appear to me as only a hotkey system for players to grab groups of units quickly, seems to now be a system (potentially) capable of utilizing various units grouped together to accomplish limited objectives, independent from player (human) input; If so, very cool.

After watching one beta tester's recent stream, here are three suggestions I have on how to make the Battlegroup system more useful for players.


As you now can assign a unit to "lead" a battlegroup, I'd like to propose adding in special Head Quarters units for SR2030. An HQ unit's purpose: To provide a small combat efficiency boost to units, within their battlegroup, that are within X km (let's say 48 or 64km max), or X # of hexes away, from that HQ unit's position. I think this would be a good way to also represent command and control (C2) within the game. Furthermore, perhaps certain techs could benefit these units' C2 range (e.g. going from 16km to 32k) or instead, technology could unlock better HQ units to research - to accommodate for better combat characteristics (defense, spotting, etc) of the HQ unit - with a longer C2 range.

Adding these HQ units would add additional depth to combat. One could also imagine a feature wherein the destruction of a battlegroup's "leader" would result in a morale loss for the units within the battlegroup OR all units of the same type (land, sea, air) within a 2-hex radius.

One should not interpret this suggestion as adding in a penalty for players who aren't using HQ units - it should only be a slight efficiency boost - but rather as a vehicle for which the AI can better use battlegroups/formations and improve the gameplay experience. I'm sure future ideas could be built around HQ units and the AI's use of them.


If Battlegroups are being designed to be able to carry out independent operations, I'd like there to be a mission editor tool, where players can designate a mission and assign a battlegroup to that mission. I think this mission mechanic would make the battlegroup system more useful and intuitive for players, especially for those new to Battle Goat games.

To create a mission, players should first select the "Missions" button, which would be located under the Defense Department tab. Upon selecting "Missions", a pop-up window, similar to the "unit presence" or "atlas" windows, should pop up where players can see all of their created missions. Here players should see (by column from L to R) Mission Name, # Assigned Battlegroups (per Mission), # Units currently Assigned (per Mission), Status (Active/Inactive buttons), Mission Type, and a Trash Can Icon (Delete button).

Under the Mission Type header, players should be able to select several buttons, similar to how one selects acceptable targets for units in SRU (air, land, sea, fortification, etc). I believe there are 5 mission types that would be most useful for players using the battlegroup system, but I'm certain there are other categories that may also fit within this grouping.

Mission Types:
Patrol - Patrol X Area;
Strike - Attack all visible hostile land and sea units in X Area;
Intercept - Attack all visible hostile air units in X Area;
Resupply - Refuel or Supply all friendly units (below 65-60% supply) in X Area;
Garrison - Garrison all POI (Urban-, Military-, or Industrial centers) in X Area. Perhaps, priority on military centers, then urban.

Back to creating a mission; Once the "Missions" tab is selected and one can see all of the above info displayed (if there's anything to display), there should be a button above the headers titled "Create New Mission". A small pop-up window should appear with a text box, similar to the rename hex UI, where a player can type in a name for the mission. A red "X" button should be below it on the left-hand side of the pop-up (Cancel) and a green check mark should be on the right-hand side for accept.

Once the green check mark, or the ENTER key, is clicked, the player's cursor should change to the Nav/reference point marker. Players can start marking out an area by clicking on hexes to an area for the mission they wish to create. Left-click would drop a reference point and right-click would undo the last reference point. The "Enter" key would finish defining the mission area.

Once done, the mission should be seen in the "Missions" tab and players should be able to select a mission type by ensuring the icon for that mission type is highlighted. All new missions should by default be set to Active.

At this point, a player should select a battlegroup from the Battlegroups Tab and select the "Assign Mission" button, which would be where the "Orders", 'Filter Unit Selection", and "Individual Rules of Engagement" buttons are. When a player selects "Assign Mission", a list of player-created missions should pop up and a player should be able to select the mission they wish to assign the selected battlegroups.

If a battlegroup is assigned to a mission, there should also be a way to quickly unassign a battlegroup from any missions it has been assigned.


You should be able to set formation behavior for each battlegroup. These controls would enhance AI behavior, especially if coupled with a Mission system. My hope is that by using formations within battlegroups, AI-controlled units will no longer move to capture objectives or engage hostile units without supporting equipment engaging simultaneously. Below are the following formation controls which would I believe would be simplest to implement:

Tight: Battlegroup units stay close - all on the same hex, if possible - to the Battlegroup leader;
Loose: Battlegroup units spread out to cover a larger area (>2-3 hexes away from other units);
Independent: Battlegroup units use the default logic the AI uses presently.

Supporting Thoughts

1. Adding depth and use to the Battlegroup system would also require better UI for battlegroup management. Specifically, a window where players can view all of their battlegroups and where they are assigned (if at all). A player should be able to quickly select a battlegroup via this screen as well.

2. Units should follow their assigned ROE when operating missions via their battlegroup assignment.

3. Tight formation behavior perhaps could be easily implemented by automatically making all units of the battlegroup move at a common speed and set to escort the leader.

4. When players manually issue orders to units assigned to a mission, the units should complete the player issues tasks (move to/attack X hex), then once they reach that location they should return to their assigned mission.

Thanks for giving this a read and leaving feedback (either a comment or via the poll). I will respond to comments when able.
Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 10 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Ideas for Better Battlegroups by AVP

Post by AVP »

Here's an example I put together.

Example 1

Date: APR 1942


In this image, we can see three mission areas set up for the RAAF in the vicinity of Darwin, NT. The mission highlighted in red is serviced by 3 x RAAF squadrons equipped with A-29 Hudson (2x) and DH.84M Dragon (1x) aircraft. This mission, titled DW APPROACH, is a patrol area for these units.

The second mission we can see is highlighted in orange, titled DW CAS. This is a strike mission, meaning the AI will strike any hostile units, per ROE, that appear in the mission area. Only 1 squadron, equipped with A-20 Havoc aircraft, is assigned to this mission protecting the port of Darwin and surrounding installations.

Lastly, we can see there is another mission area highlighted in white, titled DW CAP. Again, only 1 squadron is assigned to this mission and they are set to patrol the marked area, with permission to engage air units. The assigned squadron is equipped with native CAC Boomerang fighter aircraft. When hostile units are spotted they will break off from their plotted patrol route to engage. In this case ROE is set to engage enemy air, but to avoid or ignore enemy naval and land units.

In this image, we take a closer view of Darwin. We can see the CAP mission around the port of Darwin highlighted in white again, but we also see a garrison mission assigned to 1/9 Infantry battalion, a battalion of the 2nd Light Anti-Air Regiment, and a battery of 3-inch heavy AA guns located west of Darwin on Cox Peninsula while a gun emplacement is built. They are garrisoning all POI in the assigned AO.

Lastly, we zoom back out to look at a patrol area set up to cover the Torres Strait and the Arafura Sea to the west. This mission, highlighted in pink, is assigned to two units of the same squadron (No.9 SQN) split up into two flights. No. 9 Squadron RAAF is equipped with PBY Catalina aircraft. What is notable about this mission is that the assigned units are based in a hex outside of the assigned AO. 9 SQN was assigned this mission while based in RAAF KARUMBA and as there are no other airbases in the AO, they must fly back to RAAF KARUMBA to resupply.


This is just one example of how missions could be utilized by players to better manage units.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mr xSatyr
Warrant Officer
Posts: 25
Joined: Jul 30 2023
Human: Yes

Re: Ideas for Better Battlegroups by AVP

Post by Mr xSatyr »

This is a cool idea and I wish they implement this! Some thoughts are that rather than have to designate a "mission area" would use the battlezones that are already in the game. I did make a similar but far less in-depth post a week or so ago before I was aware you had made this
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - 2030”