Implementing flanking in 1-D combat

[Tom]

The problem, as I said, is movement. If the flanks can get around the frontlines, where to they charge? The infantry to break up the shieldwall? Or do they carry on to hit the archers in the background? It all depends on many, many factors.

[Bedwyr]

You put your cavalry, etc on the flanks and a weak holding force in the centre, as you said. But what happens if blob guy puts all his forces on that flank too? Your forces get crushed. What happens if you miscalculate and your centre loses faster than you think? You take rout damage (if that's implemented) and did nothing to hurt them. And I don't know how much your throwaway nobles will appreciate having been thrown away.

See Tom's earlier point about the field you put the most troops in becoming your new center for the first point.  As for the second, sure, you could miscalculate, but you're going to have at least a third of your force in the center, and if you are doing something like this, you're going to pick troops with max armour in box formation to hold out as long as possible.  Five bucks says my center holds out longer than whatever crap you put on the flanks, even with the extra waiting rounds, and then you're getting hit with most of my troops with a sizable bonus.

Yes, the numbers on the bonus and waiting rounds would have to be tweaked, but for anything with a real chance to finally introduce serious tactics, chance, and kill blobs at the same time, I imagine the coders would be delighted to do that tweaking if the system were implemented.

The problem, as I said, is movement. If the flanks can get around the frontlines, where to they charge? The infantry to break up the shieldwall? Or do they carry on to hit the archers in the background? It all depends on many, many factors.

Why make it complicated?  Have them show up in normal starting position with a "flanking bonus" to morale and cohesion or what have you that makes them significantly more effective fighters. 

[Sypher]

before considering what the bonus is, probably would be better to nail down the logistics.

When the 'join the center' time comes, why not have the troops on the left or right flank 'move' be to go from the flank to the center and arrive in the same column as they were before. Cavalry charges get two moves so they could move to the center and then charge into the next row.

Sure the cavalry might appear behind the enemy infantry but have them follow the same procedure they would in any other battle where cavalry breaks through the front lines.

[Tom]

Why make it complicated?  Have them show up in normal starting position with a "flanking bonus" to morale and cohesion or what have you that makes them significantly more effective fighters.

Why? Because one of the main historical purposes of flanking units was to hit the enemy archers/artillery.

[Penchant]

You put your cavalry, etc on the flanks and a weak holding force in the centre, as you said. But what happens if blob guy puts all his forces on that flank too? Your forces get crushed. What happens if you miscalculate and your centre loses faster than you think? You take rout damage (if that's implemented) and did nothing to hurt them. And I don't know how much your throwaway nobles will appreciate having been thrown away.

Their largest force is automatically center so their main force being in your flanks isn't possible.

[Foundation]

This is a good and productive discussion, but the realistic time frame for changes to combat will have to be after a big cleanup and conversion of the existing combat code.

[Velax]

Their largest force is automatically center so their main force being in your flanks isn't possible.

Both you and Bedwyr missed my point. If you're banking on your non-blobbing strategy to win by making sure the majority of your forces are on the flank, that will fail if the blobber also deploys most of his force on the flank. Whether or not that flank now becomes the centre, your smaller non-blobbed force will still get crushed by his larger blobbed.

[Tom]

This is a good and productive discussion, but the realistic time frame for changes to combat will have to be after a big cleanup and conversion of the existing combat code.

Or a total rewrite... Yeah, I know...

[Geronus]

Why? Because one of the main historical purposes of flanking units was to hit the enemy archers/artillery.

Flanking cavalry maybe, but there was an equally valid and deadly purpose in collapsing the flank of the enemy's battle line. Infantrymen get very skittish when they are attacked from the sides, or even worse, from behind. Units being flanked often broke and ran, setting off a chain reaction down the entire line. Then the cavalry rode them down while they fled.

[Indirik]

When we usually talk about "blobbing" of forces, we normally mean putting your entire army in one region. While having multiple flanks in a battle will add to strategy inside a battle, and thus make individual battles more interesting, it won't solve what we usually refer to as "blobbing". It will actually reinforce that strategy, because you will need to make sure you have enough forces in the region to man all three mini-fronts against your enemy.

What would be really interesting is to find a way for the game to automatically assign forces to each mini-front (left/center/right) based on where they come from. If all the forces come from the same region, then they all fight on the same front. Not sure how that would work for defenders, though...

[Foundation]

Defender's advantage is the ability to choose?

[Bedwyr]

Both you and Bedwyr missed my point. If you're banking on your non-blobbing strategy to win by making sure the majority of your forces are on the flank, that will fail if the blobber also deploys most of his force on the flank. Whether or not that flank now becomes the centre, your smaller non-blobbed force will still get crushed by his larger blobbed.

One of us is misunderstanding what Tom proposed.  I, of course, think it's you, but I'm willing to admit that it may well be me.  My understanding is this:

You put 90% of your troops on the left flank, and 10% in the center.  I put 30% 40% and 30% on the left, center, and right.  My 40% ends up fighting your 90% (newly designated into the center), and my left flank ends up fighting your 10%, while my right flank automatically starts moving toward the center.  I'll take the odds that my 40% will stand up long enough for my right flank to show up with a bonus, and further that they'll keep you occupied long enough for my left flank to trounce your 10% and join the fray as well.

When we usually talk about "blobbing" of forces, we normally mean putting your entire army in one region. While having multiple flanks in a battle will add to strategy inside a battle, and thus make individual battles more interesting, it won't solve what we usually refer to as "blobbing". It will actually reinforce that strategy, because you will need to make sure you have enough forces in the region to man all three mini-fronts against your enemy.

I disagree.  I even outlined a scenario where I thought a smaller army would work better than a larger army, where you bank on fighting hard on the flanks rather than the center and thus want to minimize the troops you lose in the center.  You could "lose" every battle and still do disproportionate damage.

Why? Because one of the main historical purposes of flanking units was to hit the enemy archers/artillery.

Alright, slightly modified version of my plan, flanking forces show up in formation after X rounds, but start on the enemy's side of the field.

[Indirik]

You put 90% of your troops on the left flank, and 10% in the center.  I put 30% 40% and 30% on the left, center, and right.  My 40% ends up fighting your 90% (newly designated into the center), and my left flank ends up fighting your 10%, while my right flank automatically starts moving toward the center.  I'll take the odds that my 40% will stand up long enough for my right flank to show up with a bonus, and further that they'll keep you occupied long enough for my left flank to trounce your 10% and join the fray as well.

Given Tom's idea of the largest force being your center, that's not possible. The smallest your center could be is 34%, and then only if both sides are 33% each.

Of course, any kind of tricky maneuver is a crap shoot, since you won't be able to tell how your enemy is going to line up. It is entirely possible that your enemy will also try something tricky, like putting 50% middle, 10% left, and 40% right, or something. The both of your left flanks get wiped, and both rights get a flanking bonus when they smash the middle. Or each front meets equivalent troops, etc.

I disagree.  I even outlined a scenario where I thought a smaller army would work better than a larger army, where you bank on fighting hard on the flanks rather than the center and thus want to minimize the troops you lose in the center.  You could "lose" every battle and still do disproportionate damage.

You're depending on a couple things:
1) That you will be able to control things down to the level of which noble lines up where, or that you will have extremely fine levels of control. I view this as ending up something like Marshal formations, where you would pick from a list of predefined formations like "Strong left", Cavalry Sweep Right" or something. At most, defining percentages of troop styles that take a particular flank.
2) Risky trick formation. You can't count on that.

[Bedwyr]

Given Tom's idea of the largest force being your center, that's not possible. The smallest your center could be is 34%, and then only if both sides are 33% each.

Which is why I pointed out his 90% would end up being designated the new center, and the rest of the battle went from there.

Of course, any kind of tricky maneuver is a crap shoot, since you won't be able to tell how your enemy is going to line up. It is entirely possible that your enemy will also try something tricky, like putting 50% middle, 10% left, and 40% right, or something. The both of your left flanks get wiped, and both rights get a flanking bonus when they smash the middle. Or each front meets equivalent troops, etc.

Sure.  My point was that purely dumping everything (or almost everything) into the center would not remain the be all and end all of military strategy, and in five minutes I could design something that would beat it nine times out of ten with something even close to force parity.

You're depending on a couple things:
1) That you will be able to control things down to the level of which noble lines up where, or that you will have extremely fine levels of control. I view this as ending up something like Marshal formations, where you would pick from a list of predefined formations like "Strong left", Cavalry Sweep Right" or something. At most, defining percentages of troop styles that take a particular flank.

I'm not depending on anything.  I was pointing out that if this were implemented, "put everything in the center" was not going to work as a long term, only-do-this strategy.  I'm fully aware that our level of control will be far less than this.

2) Risky trick formation. You can't count on that.

It's not a "trick" formation.  That's like saying Archers Opening is a trick formation.   Both are formations that only work if you actually plan around them, but so long as you can do that, then they are both viable formations.

[Indirik]

Your smaller force still depends on the larger army piling up in the center. If the enemy marshal is smart and distributes his army properly, he wins. Without some luck in lineups, the larger force wins. (assuming equivalent quality troops.)