The Problem of Blobs

[Chenier]

Um yeah exactly. So IF we implemented supply lines using many smaller armies would allow you to encircle the blob, cut of its supply and deal damage to it though attrition.

Until the blob just chooses to rofl stomp any given adjacent smaller army... As they would have done anyways.

No, larger better equipped and even better trained forces have been defeated by smaller armies.  I was making a statement about real life, where the CS analogy doesn't really apply. In a battle in BM higher CS will almost always win (excepting fortifications and terrible line setting failures). Given the current battle system its not going to be practical to implement a way for smaller CS forces to have much chance in a battle. But the changes proposed are about making a smaller CS force have a better chance of winning the war by providing ways to force the enemy to split their larger forces.

A superior army that is archer-heavy could be defeated due to winds. Army composition and line settings, without necessarily anyone making horrible choices, could also lead to unexpected victories. Randomness exists.

I don't agree with making weaker armies more likely to win on the basis that they are weaker.

[Chenier]

The problem is that right now wars are not one by the realm with the higher total CS, but by the realm that can bring more CS to the battlefield of the day. Which, while realistic, leads to the issue that hyperactivity is rewarded and casual play punished.

To a certain extent. When we first beat Riombara, we didn't do it thanks to our superior activity. Hell no, Riombarans were vastly superior to us as far as army movement and cohesion goes. We won because we had a stronger economy, that allowed us to recruit larger armies and that allowed us to afford to engage in moves of attrition (sacrificing costly units to do regional damage).

Superior economy > superior activity. Which is how it should be, and is realistic.

When Enweil fought Rio again after the invasion, Rio had a stronger economy and Enweil a much weaker one. Therefore, Rio was able to easily win. Normal.

[Peri]

The problem is that right now wars are not one by the realm with the higher total CS, but by the realm that can bring more CS to the battlefield of the day. Which, while realistic, leads to the issue that hyperactivity is rewarded and casual play punished.

This is a very good point and it would be certainly cool to diminish the advantages/disadvantages activity creates.

Still, I can think of very few and radical examples (which most of the cases ended in locking multiaccounters, by the way), where activity on the two sides of a war was completely different, or where could be considered the main reason for leading one side to victory. If one averages out in time the fluctuations of activity, more or less all realms behave similarly.

For how the game currently is, however, generals and marshals are forced to keep in very good consideration meta-gaming concepts such as activity and player response if they want to be successful. This could very well be a bad thing you would like to get rid of and motivate the whole debate perfectly.

[De-Legro]

Until the blob just chooses to rofl stomp any given adjacent smaller army... As they would have done anyways.

A superior army that is archer-heavy could be defeated due to winds. Army composition and line settings, without necessarily anyone making horrible choices, could also lead to unexpected victories. Randomness exists.

I don't agree with making weaker armies more likely to win on the basis that they are weaker.

You assume you would have to be adjacent to cut off a supply line, that is hardly the case. Secondly I'm not saying weaker armies should win because they are weaker. If the larger army manages to engage in a pitched battle they should win. What I am saying is that weaker armies need to have methods by which they can compete. It doesn't have to level the playing field but I believe weaker armies (and weaker realms) need a bit more love so the default thinking isn't "oh hey that realm is larger, lets never fight them"

[Chenier]

You assume you would have to be adjacent to cut off a supply line, that is hardly the case. Secondly I'm not saying weaker armies should win because they are weaker. If the larger army manages to engage in a pitched battle they should win. What I am saying is that weaker armies need to have methods by which they can compete. It doesn't have to level the playing field but I believe weaker armies (and weaker realms) need a bit more love so the default thinking isn't "oh hey that realm is larger, lets never fight them"

A realm is larger? Gang up on them...

Small realms already have a ton of advantages. To increase these advantages would result in removing all incentives to grow (Fheuv'n, for example, has acquired a few more regions but it hasn't made the realm any more rich than it used to be).

The main problem with smaller realms, imo, is the lack of active nobles to fill in key positions. It's much easier to find 6 or so committed people in a realm of 60 than in a realm of 16.

[Foundation]

Wait, wait, wait.  Let's take a step back and think about the original problem here.  The thread is getting off track.  We've established that:


1. The realm with many smaller armies should win over a realm with a single blob of equal strength.
2. Activity should be less influential on who wins the war.

These two are inherently contradictory, since to have more effective smaller armies, it necessitates more collaboration and coordination.  More nobles need to be active to function as several units than one large blob that can afford to lose a few here and there.



So again, what is the problem here?  If we have no logical, sensible, contradiction-free problem statement, there can be no reasonable, actionable solution.

[Zakilevo]

1. The problem is, there is hardly any incentive for having small multiple armies over a big army.

So far people suggested,

Disease - To stop a blob from forming. Making people only make a blob when it is necessary. Also, this will probably make battle fronts wider.

Supply line?

2. I doubt you can fix the second one. Obviously people who invest more time into the game will have higher chance of victory than people who log in once a day to check things quickly.

[Foundation]

These two are inherently contradictory

I think you're trying to suggest fixes to the impossible. ;)

[De-Legro]

Wait, wait, wait.  Let's take a step back and think about the original problem here.  The thread is getting off track.  We've established that:


1. The realm with many smaller armies should win over a realm with a single blob of equal strength.
2. Activity should be less influential on who wins the war.

These two are inherently contradictory, since to have more effective smaller armies, it necessitates more collaboration and coordination.  More nobles need to be active to function as several units than one large blob that can afford to lose a few here and there.



So again, what is the problem here?  If we have no logical, sensible, contradiction-free problem statement, there can be no reasonable, actionable solution.

That's not quite true. Activity is still always going to give an advantage. The point of this topic is blobs which isn't directly related to activity. A offset of this thread was the trend towards having super active generals control everything and provide all the orders. So long as the player base expects that of the general, you will have problems breaking up blobs because smaller armies create more work for the super active general. If the Generals position becomes more about long term strategy, then activity of the realm will still provide an advantage, but it can rely less on having a General that is online right after every turn to analysis the current situation and provide specific orders. However then we just force the issue to having several super active marshals to provide orders unless we then also equip the average knight with the info required to make immediate decisions without specific orders.

No matter what average realm activity is going to be important, given the turn structure there is no way around that.

[Tom]

The original problem is that strategy, maneuvering, etc. don't play as much a role as they should.

Throughout history, superior armies were defeated by more mobile, better positioned, etc. enemies.

While much of medieval warfare was pretty unsophisticated, from a gameplay perspective, gathering everyone in one spot and blobbing into the enemy blob is probably the most boring approach possible.


So far, disease is something I like. It also gives an alternative to siege warfare. Usually, on the brink of defeat, people will gather their army in their capital and the enemy is forced to gather a huge force outside and storm in. With disease added, they could actually besiege them.

What we need to make sure is that it's not a pure frustration moment. So it should add to attrition, and have effects that can be countered. I suggest that disease only wounds soldiers (there's still a chance for wounded to die at the turn), which can be countered with healers. It should also reduce morale. And it should very clearly say what is going on and that spreading the army out would help.

[Peri]

The original problem is that strategy, maneuvering, etc. don't play as much a role as they should.

Throughout history, superior armies were defeated by more mobile, better positioned, etc. enemies.

While much of medieval warfare was pretty unsophisticated, from a gameplay perspective, gathering everyone in one spot and blobbing into the enemy blob is probably the most boring approach possible.

I still believe this holds only when there is a substantial difference of cs or a substantial difference in the ability/activity levels of the whole military command of one of the two sides. When strength on the field is roughly equal, a blob vs blob approach is hardly the one that will lead any side to victory in a reasonable timeframe.

[vonGenf]

These two are inherently contradictory, since to have more effective smaller armies, it necessitates more collaboration and coordination.  More nobles need to be active to function as several units than one large blob that can afford to lose a few here and there.

I strongly disagree wiht that conclusion. In fact, I think that making blobs less efficient will reduce the effect the activity on the end result.

The blob strategy relies entirely on everyone moving on turn. Stragglers directly impact their realm's ability to wage war, and on top of it they get decimated when the enemy blob comes to get them.

Furthermore, common soldiers cannot move as long as a marshal's orders are not in, since any uncoordinated movement will also directly impact the blob strategy.

Therefore, forming a blob requires orders to be given in advance (which in many realms means marshals logging in early in the turn), and soldiers to wait for orders before logging out.

In a spread out strategy, however, this is much less important. A single noble leading a unit is very well capable of seeing that a neighboring region is under more pressure than the region he is in, and move there to help the defense. Personal initiative becomes possible without completely destryoing the army's strategy. Marshals still have a role, but this role becomes more to define the tactics the army follows. Precise orders are still important, but full compliance is less important.

[vonGenf]

I still believe this holds only when there is a substantial difference of cs or a substantial difference in the ability/activity levels of the whole military command of one of the two sides. When strength on the field is roughly equal, a blob vs blob approach is hardly the one that will lead any side to victory in a reasonable timeframe.

In a war between equals, both blob vs blob and spread vs spread give roughly equal chance to either side. However a blob vs spread gives victory to the blobbing side.

It's a prisoner's dilemma. It would be better if there were not a single equilibrium point to tend to.

[Tom]

I would be very happy if someone could take everything that was said about disease (the most promising solution), sum it up and put it into a new topic so we can hash it out.

[Chenier]

1. The problem is, there is hardly any incentive for having small multiple armies over a big army.

So far people suggested,

Disease - To stop a blob from forming. Making people only make a blob when it is necessary. Also, this will probably make battle fronts wider.

Supply line?

2. I doubt you can fix the second one. Obviously people who invest more time into the game will have higher chance of victory than people who log in once a day to check things quickly.

I tire of the sticks solutions. Always the stick. Always.

"Let's make what the players do suck so bad that they won't want to do it anymore". That's what you are proposing. Blobbing is not the cheese of a minority, it's the standard of the majority. And there are many compelling reasons to blob despite the fact that blobbing has several distinct drawbacks.

The original problem is that strategy, maneuvering, etc. don't play as much a role as they should.

Throughout history, superior armies were defeated by more mobile, better positioned, etc. enemies.

While much of medieval warfare was pretty unsophisticated, from a gameplay perspective, gathering everyone in one spot and blobbing into the enemy blob is probably the most boring approach possible.


So far, disease is something I like. It also gives an alternative to siege warfare. Usually, on the brink of defeat, people will gather their army in their capital and the enemy is forced to gather a huge force outside and storm in. With disease added, they could actually besiege them.

What we need to make sure is that it's not a pure frustration moment. So it should add to attrition, and have effects that can be countered. I suggest that disease only wounds soldiers (there's still a chance for wounded to die at the turn), which can be countered with healers. It should also reduce morale. And it should very clearly say what is going on and that spreading the army out would help.

We already have starvation. What would this attrition add? If you want to make sieges better, then make it so that surrounding armies block off incoming caravans. No need for a frustrating attrition mechanic that will break the whole game. Armies can already only go so far due to morale, increasing attrition morale loss on top of distance morale loss and you severely limit how far realms can go to wage wars. Even if you split the army (which is borderline impossible if you want to go far, without adding an extra week of travels), nobody's gonna like having their troops just randomly die all the time.

In a spread out strategy, however, this is much less important. A single noble leading a unit is very well capable of seeing that a neighboring region is under more pressure than the region he is in, and move there to help the defense. Personal initiative becomes possible without completely destryoing the army's strategy. Marshals still have a role, but this role becomes more to define the tactics the army follows. Precise orders are still important, but full compliance is less important.

It's a nice dream you live in. Players, for the most part, don't like taking risks. They don't like to take personal initiative. And they generally don't like having to analyze stuff themselves.

In all of my time as general or marshal, I've often used orders such as "next turn, if X then do A, if Y then do Z, and the first to act is to report to the others". If I didn't repeat the orders based on the outcome on the next turn, as soon as possible, the rate at which the order was followed was consistently drastically lower. The vaguer the instructions, like "then move to the least defended region", the poorer the rate of deployment. Having someone take the time to analyze the big picture and willing to take responsibility for everything is extremely comforting for most players. They don't want to waste all of their time analyzing all the military data, and they don't want to assume any risks themselves.

Of course there are some like me, and probably you, who are less risk-avere and have more initiative. But that's not the majority of the player base. It's actually a dwindling and constantly more marginal portion of the player base.

Which is why I find foolish any gameplay moves that push towards strategies than rely on more active players, when there is always less of them. Finding someone willing to be a marshal or general is already pretty damn hard. Finding someone both willing to take the title and the responsibilities that come with it is next to impossible.