Ambush

[Charles]

Since there seem to be different opinions on this, then first things first:

Define the PURPOSE of the feature before you concentrate on implementation details.

In my mind this has been a feature that should make it possible for a small group to do serious damage to a larger one.  Not without significant risk mind you.  Having something for both the attacker and defender would be nice.

[Tom]

back to topic, everyone. From this point on, every posting that does not discuss what the PURPOSE of the feature should be will be mercilessly deleted.

[Duvaille]

Tom,

How deep do you want to go with the purpose? I am not trying to be picky or anything like that, I just want to understand what you want. Is "purpose" something that the feature does, ie. "the purpose of ambush is to make troops invisible." Or is it more like "the purpose of ambush that makes troops invisible is to add some fog of war". Or "the purpose of ambush that makes troops invisible, adding a fog of war effect, is to make it harder for the commanders to make predictions of the outcomes of their troop movements, which increases thrilling sensations in players, resulting in more enjoyable game experience, which results in more players."

Or something between that? More detailed rationale the better? Or are we answering some question such as "why does this feature make the game experience better?" It would help if you formulated the implied question, if it is not the one I tried to put together here. Just trying to improve signal to noise ratio here.

[Tom]

How deep do you want to go with the purpose?

As deep as is necessary to answer the question "what is it for ?"


Right now, the discussion is unfocussed because different people want this thing to do different things.

[Longmane]

How I see this is not a matter of being able have a few dozen troops, or indeed even hundreds, in hiding somewhere waiting to do a bit of mischief, either leading up to, or on the peripherals of a battle, but rather a unit that while positioned out of the enemy's line of sight, and likewise with orders not to become involved in the battle until a certain time/something happens, can if successful have a major impact on the whole thing.

ie A strong body of archers suddenly being revealed at a set point of the battle, perhaps on their sides middle rank when the attackers reach their first, as something like that could have a marked effect out of proportion to the numbers involved, and similarly was the kind of thing that happened.

I also think the unit involved could be thought of simply as your reserve, as likewise need have  high stats training wise ect, or even/and commanded by someone with high stats themselves.

[Zakilevo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush

I know wiki is usually bad but it gives a couple good examples. Ambush was used by both aggressors and defenders.

Whoever arrive in a region first should get an option to use this as they probably have the time to prepare for an ambush.

Also, it might be good to let ambushes set for sunset be more successful than ambushes set for sunrise meaning if you ambush people at night it is more likely to succeed than ambushing them during day time.

The one problem with setting an ambush in an enemy region is that they can easily check before you set up an ambush by using the region page.

Ambushes were used to take your enemies by surprise. By doing so you could lower your enemy's morale and make them panic.

[Duvaille]

Ok, I just deleted a long reply and will instead focus on the one most important aspect of the ambush mechanic:

The feature could be about capturing an enemy noble and destroying his unit completely. A successful ambush does that, whereas a failure wipes out your unit and lands you into enemy dungeon with same consequences as infiltrators have, ambushing being ignoble and all that.

What this does is that it offers the small guy a way to hurt the advancing big guy, though of course the big guy could do this as well, but it is usually the big guy who does the advancing. If the small guy has plenty of territory between him and the other guy, he may try to damage the attacker enough in order to even out the odds at the final conflict. To counter the ambushes, there could be a way to proceed cautiously and more slowly in anticipation of the ambush. Thus the commander would need to choose between moving quickly to his mark or playing it safe and risking delays and other complications.

When there is a significant risk to the ambusher, it will not be used lightly or by default, but rather only in special circumstances, such as when you try to capture a particular noble or when the situation really is that desperate.

[Tom]

Longmane: That's another "how could it work".

I want to know "what is it for?" -- what in the game do we want to support or weaken? What does it add to the game? Why does it make the game better?

[Duvaille]

It makes the game better by making different terrain types have different inherent tactical values. It is easier to ambush in forests and mountains.

[Zakilevo]

Longmane: That's another "how could it work".

I want to know "what is it for?" -- what in the game do we want to support or weaken? What does it add to the game? Why does it make the game better?

At the moment, the game's battle system doesn't offer much. No tactical flexibility. You can't out maneuver your enemies since we can only move 1 region per turn which will not be changed no matter what. Or we can't bring enemies down from the within in a siege battle - which was the easiest way to win a siege, make your spies open the gate. There is no element of surprise in the game at all. At the moment, only thing you have to do is gather a big army composed of infantry and just outnumber your foes. There are different types of generals. One who prefers the traditional way - in BM I guess you can say gather a big army and just push, or one who prefers to use other methods - riskier but pays off, or mix of the two.

With features enabling people to take risks for higher returns, I think we will see more emergence of different outcomes instead of one - a realm with big armies win no matter what.

[Duvaille]

It forces commanders to make tactical choices between rushing quickly to the target or perhaps taking a detour to avoid obvious ambush spots. Or ordering the army to proceed cautiously and more slowly. More meaningful tactical choices and a sense of danger when wandering to seemingly empty region add to the thrill of the game experience. You never know what lurks down there in the darkwood.

[edit: another thought]

If you suspect an ambush, it would make sense to send a vanguard force to spearhead the attack and scout the region in advance. If an ambush hits a random target in the advancing army, you might risk having your marshal captured. Making it a good idea to send smaller forces first as forward scouts makes for more interesting tactical choices. Run in blindly and rush for the capital, or deploy a small cavalry force in the front. But is one enough? Suppose there are troops underway to the region to take out your vanguard force. So send more units? But is it wise to split your forces like that? Can you afford it? Can you afford NOT doing it? More choices to your standard tactic of blobness. Essential choices at that. Diversity in warfare. It is all good.

Further, some troops may be better at avoiding ambushes in certain regions, adding more diversity in the choice of which units to choose for the vanguard. Mixed infantry could be especially good at both ambushing and countering them in the woods and mountains, whereas ambushing cavalry in the open would be madness (better view from high up, can maneuver quickly, can pursue ambushers on foot).

[Indirik]

I want to know "what is it for?" -- what in the game do we want to support or weaken? What does it add to the game? Why does it make the game better?

Well, my guess is this:
The current combat system works in a manner that means when a small force meets a big force, the small force is wiped out in a manner that results in very little significant damage on a larger force. This supports and reinforces the "big blob" mentality, where all forces are lumped into one blob that steamrollers over anything smaller than itself. This means that the opposition has to blob up to compete. There is no other viable strategy.

An Ambush feature would theoretically allow a smaller force to have an ability to inflict a not-insignificant amount of damage on an enemy force without getting completely wiped out. This could, somehow, help break down that big-blob mentality. Not exactly sure how this could work, but I think that's the general idea.

[Zakilevo]

Also, if you set up an ambush beside a stronghold, maybe you can force your enemies to choose the stronghold instead. Strongholds are completely obsolete as they are placed in non-strategical places.

[Indirik]

That would ... require them to know the ambush is there. Making it ... not an ambush.

[fodder]

... thing about "invisibility" is that.. your realm know it's there.. so it's not a secret. (think back channel/ooc spying)

so for ambush to work, it would have to work inside a battle.. rather than you can't see them in scout report. it's a case of... you know they got a lump of troops in the region.. but you don't know where in the region and what they are doing....  which i guess sounds a bit counter-intuitive when you can see them in the scout report...

how do you stop a massive army ambushing a small one? the more troops there are in a region, the easier it is to annul an ambush.

what does ambush do? lower enemy troop morale probably.

how will it work? does each commander have to click ambush? maybe. don't know.