Implementing flanking in 1-D combat

[loren]

So I started doing the whole military side of things for the first time in a long while (gulp two years?) and I started to wonder how combat might be made much more interesting.  It's been a problem for a while now that the main goal has been to try and bring the biggest units to the fore and just charge at eachother with infantry and calvary meeting at different places along the line and archers just shooting at anything that moves.

What if we fiddled with the code a bit so that if there is already a melee and units are coming up to join the fray they can gain a flanking bonus on a unit that is already engaged in combat?  ie. Unit A and B are fighting in the very middle.  Unit C is friends with B and was one line behind, if they pass the unit A is not too wide (already in the code as I recall) they gain a flanking bonus that is reported in the attack report.  After unit A retreats or if unit C is engaged by another friend of unit A then it loses its flanking bonus against A.

This could I imagine really open up combat and make it more inherently unpredictable and as a result fun =).  It'd also make archers more useful b/c commanders would be more inclined to keep units staggered and give them something to shoot at.

[Indirik]

Wouldn't just make victories even more one-sided? Or, perhaps, give even more incentive to big-blob with infantry? Having a large infantry advantage, which already makes victory more likely, would gain you a lot of flanking bonuses, and cause a very lopsided victory.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the idea.

[Forbes Family]

I like this idea but think it could do with a bit of tweaking...

Have Marshals designate what troops would flank which way or if you are defending setting up troops to defend certain flanks. This could be set up for marshals with more experience as well.

[loren]

Wouldn't just make victories even more one-sided? Or, perhaps, give even more incentive to big-blob with infantry? Having a large infantry advantage, which already makes victory more likely, would gain you a lot of flanking bonuses, and cause a very lopsided victory.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the idea.

One sided in so far as the other did lots more damage than the other do to better tactics yes.  I don't follow how it'd increase big blob infantry.  Archers would be more useful as they'd do more damage throughout the battle, as would Calvary.  Charge bonus with a flanking bonus would be truly fearsome.

[egamma]

ideally:
1. Cavalry assault left flank, bypassing infantry blob in center
2. Cavalry clear out archers in rear of formation
3. Cavalry turn and attack infantry from the rear, probably gaining an additional bonus for doing so.

Of course, the enemy might set their forces to attack on the right side, or the left.

Maybe make the flanks "smaller", so that you can only send units of under 40 men to the side? The large 100-man units will be forced to fight it out in the center.

[loren]

I like this idea but think it could do with a bit of tweaking...

Have Marshals designate what troops would flank which way or if you are defending setting up troops to defend certain flanks. This could be set up for marshals with more experience as well.

You're trying to make BM's 1-D combat two dimensional, and that in all likelihood won't ever happen.

[loren]

ideally:
1. Cavalry assault left flank, bypassing infantry blob in center
2. Cavalry clear out archers in rear of formation
3. Cavalry turn and attack infantry from the rear, probably gaining an additional bonus for doing so.

Of course, the enemy might set their forces to attack on the right side, or the left.

Maybe make the flanks "smaller", so that you can only send units of under 40 men to the side? The large 100-man units will be forced to fight it out in the center.

Cav can already breakthrough the front lines and do just that.  The code already mimics this.  And again my idea isn't to make combat 2-D.  It's a thought on how to simulate flanking in 1-D environment.

[Psyche]

I'd like it if it were directional flanking based on what region you're coming from. 

Let's say the defenders are being attacked by a region on their left, and a region on their right at the same time.  The region on the right is closer, in terms of miles, so that attacking army is facing the defenders head on. 
The region on the left arrives after the first turn, and gains a 25% bonus to defending units ALREADY ENGAGED with the other army.   
The defenders scouted appropriately, and decided to have a reserve of infantry in the back, wall setting archers in the middle.  These infantry engage the flankers, negating their bonus.
The defending archers are set to skirmish, allowing them to attack either army depending on eligibility; which unit is closest to them, in range, and not engaged in melee- to avoid friendly fire...

An idea at least, but probably an idea from he'll in coding perspective.

[Zakilevo]

Why not just make things 2-D instead of trying to improve 1-D? Fighting on a 2-D plane will give so much more possibilities to different tactics.

[Anaris]

Why not just make things 2-D instead of trying to improve 1-D? Fighting on a 2-D plane will give so much more possibilities to different tactics.

We've discussed it in the past. The combat upgrade a couple years ago that got units fighting other individual units was a compromise and a step in that direction.

One of the major problems (though far from the only one) was display. How do you display units on a 2D battlefield, in HTML, without it looking like crap or taking up 200% of the screen in at least one direction?

[Indirik]

The other big problem with true 2D is avoiding the obvious exploits of ignoring everything but one of the three fronts. Pack all your troops into, say, the left flank and charge. What about sieges? We ran into a lot of questions and no really good answers.

[fodder]

...hit empty air? they charge off into the distance off the battlefield in search of the baggage train XD

would be funny if both sides go off screen.

[Anaris]

The other big problem with true 2D is avoiding the obvious exploits of ignoring everything but one of the three fronts. Pack all your troops into, say, the left flank and charge. What about sieges? We ran into a lot of questions and no really good answers.

To be more accurate, the only good answer we could come up with was "much better AI", which is both hard to code and taxing on the server.

[Zakilevo]

To be more accurate, the only good answer we could come up with was "much better AI", which is both hard to code and taxing on the server.

Oh well. Improving AI sounds too much to ask for. Then what about instead of adding flanking we add an ambush feature? Only allow it to be used as a defensive tactic - meaning you can only use it in your own regions.

Once players press the ambush button, their units will become invisible from scouts and region status pages. Also, depending on the region type, the chance of being discovered should change as well. On rural+badland regions, scouts can detect them 40-50% of the time - failed attempts leading to the loss of scouts - maybe not all the time but it can lead to scouts returning with the same information as the region status page. In mountain+forest regions, make the chance of detection much slimmer, something like between 10-25%.

Once ambushing units enter the battle, make the ambushing units hit 1.5-2 times harder and make enemies suffer from significant morale loss while giving them 10-20% withdrawal rate. Or instead of hitting harder, give the ambushing force higher chance to wound nobles?

But if they are detected before being ambushed, make them fight like a normal battle - without the ambushing group knowing they are detected.

To balance things out, maybe limiting how many units can hide at once wouldn't be too bad.

[Norrel]

The way CK2 does it is fairly cool. An army is comprised of three flanks, and you can designate what troops go into what flank. The flanks fight separate battles, but when a flank wins, it joins the central fight with a major combat bonus. Could anything be taken from that?