Collaborative vs Individual Effects

[Bedwyr]

This is just a general design thing I've been mulling for a while, and I'd like to get it outside my head and see what it looks like.

It was sparked by digging in.  Used to be used all the time in the days when people could count on high cohesion on a single turn.  Nowadays, I never see it used unless you have at least a day to do it, because you split your melee line otherwise.  Cavalry never does, because you want them to charge.

Then I thought about stuff like civil work and police work, where more is better, but less is still better than nothing.  And I thought...Why can't digging in be like that?

Why can't it work in the sense of every unit who clicks the button adds to the strength of the fieldworks, that the whole side then gets to use?  People would use it a lot more, and it would make far more sense.

Which got me to thinking about different aspects of the game that are similar.  Like line settings.  There's been a lot of arguments about formations and such, organization coming and going...But what if that worked the same way?  Your whole army fights better the more people you have on the right settings, but we stop penalizing people who forget to check, and just have them fight alongside everyone else rather than charging out front like an idiot, or staying behind.

This way you still get bonuses and some penalties, but not the stupid "Yar!  I will charge ahead of everyone else in the army because I didn't get the memo!" stuff.  Or the "nah, I'll just hang out behind these trenches while the rest of the army gets slaughtered" stuff.

I'm not sure what else this could apply to, but I'm sure there's other stuff.

Thoughts?

[JPierreD]

Great idea, completely supported.

[fodder]

how does it work in practice? the marshal does it? majority rules?

what happens when your horses reach the dug in line? is it effective only on defensive settings?

[Anaris]

Why can't it work in the sense of every unit who clicks the button adds to the strength of the fieldworks, that the whole side then gets to use?  People would use it a lot more, and it would make far more sense.

This might be feasible to code.

Your whole army fights better the more people you have on the right settings, but we stop penalizing people who forget to check, and just have them fight alongside everyone else rather than charging out front like an idiot, or staying behind.

This would be fiendishly difficult to code.

There's a reason Organization went away.

[Tom]

The problem I see with this is that you would force people to be dug in that may not want that.

Digging in not only gives a defensive bonus, it also affects unit movement. Dug in units wait longer until they advance, for example.

[Anaris]

The problem I see with this is that you would force people to be dug in that may not want that.

Digging in not only gives a defensive bonus, it also affects unit movement. Dug in units wait longer until they advance, for example.

This is part of the problem, Tom.  If you have half your infantry dug in, and the other half not, they will not advance together, and your army can face defeat in detail, when otherwise it might have been able to win.

[Tom]

It can also be an advantage if that is exactly what you wanted to do.

[Revan]

It was sparked by digging in.  Used to be used all the time in the days when people could count on high cohesion on a single turn.  Nowadays, I never see it used unless you have at least a day to do it, because you split your melee line otherwise.  Cavalry never does, because you want them to charge.

The beginning of your argument is where it falls down. If in the midsts of time when there were even more players to juggle, digging in was a viable method of war, why not now? Though saying that, when was this mythical golden age for successful use of digging in? One of my worst defeats as General of ASI came in August 2006. We were sat in Wynford with Falasan and half our forces had not bothered digging in, allowing Abington a great victory against the odds.

If digging in isn't a regularly used option of warfare these days, it's because the ways of war have changed and the circumstances of its ideal use changed along with it. That or us old folk have too many bad memories and dismiss it's use out of hand, probably quite foolishly. With the reduced numbers of nobles nowadays it would likely be easier to see dig in orders followed en masse than when we were all sat around waiting for battles that would see in excess of 100 nobles present.

Either way, I'm opposed to the idea of single noble being able to click 'Dig in' and then ensuring every single one of the rest of us is behind some kind of fortification. That doesn't change any of the problems to me. You're still going to see war efforts potentially sabotaged by the action/inaction of a handful of nobles. I say leave it as it is. Just because it's there doesn't mean we have to use it and likewise, if we do use it, better prepare ourselves for the chance it could backfire.

[Anaris]

It can also be an advantage if that is exactly what you wanted to do.

Most of the time, it's not.  Blobbing up your units, like it or not, is still the most effective method of winning.

[Indirik]

Which got me to thinking about different aspects of the game that are similar.  Like line settings.  There's been a lot of arguments about formations and such, organization coming and going...But what if that worked the same way?  Your whole army fights better the more people you have on the right settings, but we stop penalizing people who forget to check, and just have them fight alongside everyone else rather than charging out front like an idiot, or staying behind.

As far as line settings, what you're describing already exist: Marshal formations. So long as there is a marshal with the army, and he has a formation set, then everyone lines up nice and pretty. They don't even have to do anything. The marshal takes care of it.

Yes, some of the marshal settings are not good, but they do what you want. Maybe we can even add an advanced formation that includes digging in. Not sure how that would work due to the hours cost for individual units. I guess all you would really need is a formation where the defenders stay in place, unmoving, for 4 rounds, then charge. Call it "Hold the Line" or something. Then whether the defenders are dug in or not, it doesn't matter, because the lines won't get split.

[fodder]

(didn't even realise organisation went away!)

what advantage would splitting into 2 lines of infantry give you? already you have the chance of having some of your line breaking through the enemy line (when you outnumber them or some such?)

[Ramiel]

(didn't even realise organisation went away!)

what advantage would splitting into 2 lines of infantry give you? already you have the chance of having some of your line breaking through the enemy line (when you outnumber them or some such?)

First line hits the enemy, softens them up a lot but might still take too many causulties, just before that happens the second line rushes in and the force of that second charge WILL rout the enemy line somewhat.

Think of Romans, best tactic was to have a deep formation block of infantry and just punch through the lines.

[Indirik]

fodder was probably more thinking along the lines of "Why would you want to do that in-game", rather than "Why would you want to do that in real life". In the current system, I really don't see any advantage to attacking in waves.

[Telrunya]

But what if one Noble digs in and forces the entire Army to act as if they are behind self-made fortifications? That would potentially penalize everyone because one Noble made a mistake / decided something different (Who will then surely receive a lot of anger towards him from the rest). And if you built some sort of protection for that, where do you draw the line for when selfmade fortifications apply armywide? Perhaps Marshal Settings with a checkbox to make use of any selfmade fortifications?

[Vellos]

Or what if you roleplay your character as a wild, feckless hero always charging into battle?

I'm thinking French knights at Agincourt.