cohesion of an army

[Zakilevo]

I just want to discuss about cohesion of an army. BM is a game where each knight and lord command a small group of units and join together to form a bigger army. It is good and all except you are gathering units from different regions into one giant army with lack of training to hold the entire army together. If you gather 10 000 people from different regions to fight, it will be whole lot from having one giant army trained as a whole. I think it wouldn't hurt to have a way to show how well trained or cohesive your army as a whole. Maybe marshals or generals should have an option to train their armies? or whenever people spend time on training, it will increase cohesion of their respective army? I don't know how many people actually use training option these days but whenever I join a realm at war or about to go to war, they don't bother training their men since they will lose their men anyway.

[Indirik]

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Feature_Requests/General_Bonus_for_Multiple_Armies_in_Battles

[Zakilevo]

I am guessing that has been rejected?

[Indirik]

No. It was proposed, but never rejected or accepted. I suppose it can be considered "up for discussion".

[Zakilevo]

And I just want some way to increase the cohesion of the army.

Fear is a powerful tool. If one of units retreats in fear, units with low training and cohesion should incline to retreat as well, shattering the formation of an entire army eventually. 50000 well trained men are better than 100 000 untrained men.

[vonGenf]

And I just want some way to increase the cohesion of the army.

Fear is a powerful tool. If one of units retreats in fear, units with low training and cohesion should incline to retreat as well, shattering the formation of an entire army eventually. 50000 well trained men are better than 100 000 untrained men.

The training does already reflect that, and it is reflected in CS. That's why 30 SF will be better than 30 trained infantry will be better than 30 untrained infantry. The relevant CS does double (and more!).

That's only at the unit level though, and not at the army level.

[Zakilevo]

Yes. Fear is contagious however. People will fight if they think they can win but if they start to think they are going to lose, you will start to see cowards breaking off from their positions.

[Tom]

Yes. Fear is contagious however. People will fight if they think they can win but if they start to think they are going to lose, you will start to see cowards breaking off from their positions.

The problem with that is it leads to extremely crushing defeats. Read up on the casualty numbers at the battle of Marathon, for example.

[egamma]

The problem with that is it leads to extremely crushing defeats. Read up on the casualty numbers at the battle of Marathon, for example.

On the other hand, I think most marshals would like a checkbox that says "if infantry are defeated, archers perform an orderly retreat".

[Tom]

On the other hand, I think most marshals would like a checkbox that says "if infantry are defeated, archers perform an orderly retreat".

Yes, but that doesn't exist for gameblance reasons. It would make archers dramatically more resilient than melee troops. Right now, I think the balance is perfect - archers have a great survivability as long as your melee troops hold. But once the frontlines break and they enter melee, they get destroyed.

[egamma]

Yes, but that doesn't exist for gameblance reasons. It would make archers dramatically more resilient than melee troops. Right now, I think the balance is perfect - archers have a great survivability as long as your melee troops hold. But once the frontlines break and they enter melee, they get destroyed.

but it's not 'realistic', nor is it 'fun' for the archer players. And there are cases where you do want your archers to hold--hence the marshal checkbox option.

[Zakilevo]

but it's not 'realistic', nor is it 'fun' for the archer players. And there are cases where you do want your archers to hold--hence the marshal checkbox option.

The problem is the entire BM battle system is unreal. You are playing on a 1D battlefield. You just have to deal with some aspects of it. If I am given a choice between realistic and fun, I would probably go with fun since I am trying to have fun playing a game not a realistic medieval battle simulator.

[Penchant]

but it's not 'realistic', nor is it 'fun' for the archer players.

If you did that then all nobles in a war commanding archers are significantly richer due to the fact there archers arent dying as often since they are retreating thus Tom's balance comment.

[De-Legro]

If you dead that then all nobles in a war commanding archers are significantly richer due to the fact there archers arent dying as often since they are retreating thus Tom's balance comment.

This is true in general anyway. Even when you are winning battles infantry are going to have more losses in general to replace. But I agree anything that makes archer more survivable will tip the system. We will end up with stupid things like armies with a few infantry units to absorb damage for a few turns, then your archer retreat with next to no loss. Rinse and repeat next turn until the enemy is finally brought low by arrows.

The idea of a orderly retreat after infantry are dead just doesn't really gel with me. There are reasons why in so many battle the majority of deaths were suffered AFTER the army left the field of battle. Don't archers already attempt to pull back from the melee lines? That should be more then enough, if you want something more then set archers to have low withdraw settings.

[egamma]

We will end up with stupid things like armies with a few infantry units to absorb damage for a few turns, then your archer retreat with next to no loss. Rinse and repeat next turn until the enemy is finally brought low by arrows.

And the enemy will adapt, spreading their army out, and your archers will do no damage. Both sides will have the same setting change.

Or, we end up with more archers used, and maybe one side has theirs set to retreat and the other doesn't, and the one that doesn't retreat wins the battle.

The idea of a orderly retreat after infantry are dead just doesn't really gel with me. There are reasons why in so many battle the majority of deaths were suffered AFTER the army left the field of battle. Don't archers already attempt to pull back from the melee lines? That should be more then enough, if you want something more then set archers to have low withdraw settings.

Low withdrawal only happens AFTER the infantry have reached your archers--at that point, it's too late.

Do you know what I see? I see infantry-heavy blob armies, with few archers, few cavalry, few SF, and few MI. I would like to see a combined-arms approach, and that only works well if the archers don't stand around like idiots while the opposing force moves 3 ranks towards them.

Archers already do less damage, due to range, wind, friendly troops on the line. Can't we make them work just a little smarter?