Ambush

[Zakilevo]

But you can't control peasants. They should be out of the equation.

How many men would you let marshals or TLs to hide then Tom?

[Lefanis]

It should go by men, not CS. 100 peasants (CS 600) are more difficult to hide than 50 mercenaries (CS 800).

Will it be by just troop size, or by army size? Like so-

>400 men- 80% success at ambush
>500 men- 60% success at ambush
>600 men- 45% success at ambush
>700 men- 30% success at ambush
>800 men- 15% success at ambush
>900 men- 5% success at ambush

Larger your army, harder to hide. So the primary beneficiaries shall be smaller forces.

[egamma]

Will it be by just troop size, or by army size? Like so-

>400 men- 80% success at ambush
>500 men- 60% success at ambush
>600 men- 45% success at ambush
>700 men- 30% success at ambush
>800 men- 15% success at ambush
>900 men- 5% success at ambush

Larger your army, harder to hide. So the primary beneficiaries shall be smaller forces.

Also modifiers for region type. Easy to hide in woodlands, hard in rurals, etc.

[Tom]

I'm thinking a competitive rate instead of a hard limit - the more men that try to hide, the higher the chance of discovery.

Not yet sure if it should be an all-or-nothing, but if even one unit is discovered I think the enemy would be warned and the others should have at least a reduced bonus.

[Zakilevo]

I'm thinking a competitive rate instead of a hard limit - the more men that try to hide, the higher the chance of discovery.

Not yet sure if it should be an all-or-nothing, but if even one unit is discovered I think the enemy would be warned and the others should have at least a reduced bonus.

What bonus? I thought we were going to keep things simple by making them just be invisible?

I think morale reduction is a good idea since ambushes did actually lower enemy morale...

[Tom]

Just thinking out loud. Basically, there should be a risk at trying to hide too many troops. If there isn't, everyone will try to hide everything (or the max allowed) all the time. Ambushes should NOT be a standard strategy.

[Penchant]

Just thinking out loud. Basically, there should be a risk at trying to hide too many troops. If there isn't, everyone will try to hide everything (or the max allowed) all the time. Ambushes should NOT be a standard strategy.

One disadvantage could be no marshal formations when you hide your units.

[Zakilevo]

Just thinking out loud. Basically, there should be a risk at trying to hide too many troops. If there isn't, everyone will try to hide everything (or the max allowed) all the time. Ambushes should NOT be a standard strategy.

Of course. Maybe marshals' leadership skill should play a role?

[Charles]

Perhaps the chance of the ambush succeeding should also depend on how many troops there are in the region.  200 men on their own would hide better than 200 men with 1000 who are preparing for battle.
Again, just trying to disuade the blobs, or atleast not benefit them.
I think the elimination of the separate battle makes sense.  But I think some other bonus should exist beyond just invisibility.  Some kind of (small) combat bonus.

[Tom]

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.

[GoldPanda]

The defender already has many advantages: Do not have to worry about movement rate. Ability to dig in. Possible fortifications. Why give them more advantages?

If anything, there should be more features that benefit the attacker.

[Charles]

Does it have to be the defending army that does the ambush?
I was thinking of sneaking a few units into a region and ambushing a larger force, and then running off before they can regroup.

*Now that I think of it, that would need to be called something else.

[Duvaille]

The purpose of the ambush feature could be as simple as to give some region types more strategical significance. It would be much harder to ambush someone on the open plains, but in a forest it would be much easier.

[egamma]

Does it have to be the defending army that does the ambush?
I was thinking of sneaking a few units into a region and ambushing a larger force, and then running off before they can regroup.

*Now that I think of it, that would need to be called something else.

A skirmish or raid.

[Duvaille]

How about some rock-scissors-paper?

You could have your men "raid" and only engage a portion of enemy troops. If, however, there is an ambush, the "raid" backfires with severe penalties. If there is no "raid" and there is "ambush", the "ambush" backfires.

Then have some randomness in it too, perhaps dependent on leadership skill. Both raids and ambushers would fail less frequently with high leadership skill and low amount of men to command.

A "raid" that succeeds hits a part of the defenders for some rounds and then the troops start traveling back to their original region. A "raid" that fails makes it a normal battle with the raiders on the front lines (further out than normal, perhaps).

So, to the essential feature would be "raiding", which would enable a smaller force to take a bite on the larger one, and "ambush" would be to counter that.