Maximum battle width depends on region type

[Bedwyr]

First, this is part of a broader effort designed to make war more interesting with minimal changes, see here http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3933.msg97163.html#msg97163

So: This is something that I've considered for a while, and I think would make a big difference, especially if overcrowding were tweaked to make a bigger difference: Set maximum battle-widths that depend on region type.

Rurals, as one extreme, would have the currently very large (is there a max?) line widths, allowing thousands of troops to fight side by side if they so choose.

Mountains, to pick the other extreme, would have much smaller battle-widths, perhaps only a hundred (number chosen for ease of thought in this example rather than an actual suggestion, that would need to be considered) soldiers wide.  What that would mean is you can't go around them, you just have a hundred of their troops fight a hundred of their troops at a time.  So you can have a small, elite army hold off a much larger army of crap troops with very lopsided casualties in a mountain pass.  But, your small elite army would get cut to shreds by the ravaging hordes in an open field.

The other regions would fall somewhere in between.  Depending on the complexity of coding there are a number of options, but if we say that rurals can have a line ten thousand men long (again, chosen for easy thinking, not realism) and mountains can have only a hundred, with forests only having five hundred, maybe a thousand in hills, badlands at eight hundred, etc.

You then have situations where you have to consider where you are going to fight.  You have to pick the right troops to fight in a mountain vs a rural.  The idea of having one army for your realm would be laughable for anything except the smallest city states, because you would need different troops in different places.  And you would have to use your troops differently in those circumstances.

This would basically make geography much, much more relevant than it is now, with (hopefully) only one small change to the code that sets up battles.

[Indirik]

While in general I like the idea, I think your statement of " The idea of having one army for your realm would be laughable for anything except the smallest city states" is woefully optimistic. I would think that a very large portion of the realms in the game would not be able to support multiple special-purpose armies. It's also a case of having to match whatever your enemy uses, and the terrain in your realm and your enemy's realm. If your enemy is all open plains, and they BigBlob you through your one open rural, you will have no choice but to meet them there. Your elite infantry army tailored to the mountain choke points will be next to useless on the open fields.

Nevertheless, this is an interesting idea to add some terrain effects into the mix.

[Zakilevo]

Maybe make the penalty for overcrowding more severe for mountains?

Or allow only a certain number of men enter a battle happening in a mountain region?

The number can vary for every mountain region.

[Bedwyr]

While in general I like the idea, I think your statement of " The idea of having one army for your realm would be laughable for anything except the smallest city states" is woefully optimistic. I would think that a very large portion of the realms in the game would not be able to support multiple special-purpose armies.

It's not that they are "special purpose" armies.  What I'm saying is every realm has a mix of recruitment centers, and I think you might see a return to the sort of three-tiered armies a lot of realms used to have, except instead of it being tiered by the "ability" of the nobles in question, they would be tiered by the type of troops they recruited.  So those who recruit from the elite centers go into the "elite" army with smaller units, then a middle army, then an army with as many cheap troops as you can get.

It's also a case of having to match whatever your enemy uses, and the terrain in your realm and your enemy's realm.

Exactly!

If your enemy is all open plains, and they BigBlob you through your one open rural, you will have no choice but to meet them there.

Or, you concede the rural regions and take their forests.  Or, you lure them into a region they shouldn't be in.  Or you let them hit the rurals and move around them to play a raiding game in their badlands.  If their army is optimized for rurals, you can either play their game, or pick one of your own.

Your elite infantry army tailored to the mountain choke points will be next to useless on the open fields.

If you are heavily outnumbered, yes they will.  But that's the whole point of this.  You actually have to think about where you're going to be fighting, and adjust accordingly.

[Bedwyr]

Maybe make the penalty for overcrowding more severe for mountains?

Separate discussion, please see the thread on overcrowding, but yes!

Or allow only a certain number of men enter a battle happening in a mountain region?

Nah, let them attack with as many men as they want.  They won't be able to hurt you with them,and then you can pull a 300 style victory and laugh in their faces while the rest of your forces hit them somewhere else.

[Zakilevo]

So will it more like forcing the attacking force to attack in waves? Instead of the current 'everyone in the front'?

[Poliorketes]

I like it, but it will be simple to encode???

[jaune]

How about making roads crowded more severe? Moving huge armies to one place would be hard and it would make "frontelines" of war wider. Cause moving several units to one region would cause roads so crowded that units would be delayed.

-Jaune

[Anaris]

This would not be trivial to code, but it would not be fantastically difficult, either.

The combat code already has to keep track of how many people are fighting in a given line, and prevent more from joining in the fight if there's no more room; adding in the extra possibility of there being simply too many people in that line to move forward at all wouldn't be hugely complicated, I don't think.

However, you do have to watch out for potential exploits in this.

If, for instance, only a hundred men were allowed in a single line for a battle in the mountains—what happens if one side has a single unit that has a hundred men in it? Melee combat happens between two units in the same line of battle; how does the game allow any melee combat with that unit?

Just various stuff that would have to be thought about if something like this were to be implemented.

Conceptually, though, I do like it, and have mused on stuff like this in the past myself.

[vonGenf]

If, for instance, only a hundred men were allowed in a single line for a battle in the mountains—what happens if one side has a single unit that has a hundred men in it? Melee combat happens between two units in the same line of battle; how does the game allow any melee combat with that unit?

The Records (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Records_of_BattleMaster#Characters) show that the largest unit ever was 320 men. I would say the smallest width possible could be around 600 men. Then there would always be room for more than one unit, and even with smaller units this corresponds to 12 units of 50 men each, hardly a blob.

I think the goal here would be to replicate Agincourt, not Thermopylae.

[Tom]

Bad idea.

This will play havoc with the battle code. So your line is max 600? Then for 90% of the battles it won't matter at all. For the really large ones, however, this will happen:

500 men of one side move into the square, distributed over several units. Now only 100 of the enemy can move in and will, of course, get slaughtered. Next 100 move in, get slaughtered... players complain.


At the absolute very least, the maximum has to count seperately per side. Everything else is a bad idea.

[Bedwyr]

Bad idea.

This will play havoc with the battle code. So your line is max 600? Then for 90% of the battles it won't matter at all. For the really large ones, however, this will happen:

500 men of one side move into the square, distributed over several units. Now only 100 of the enemy can move in and will, of course, get slaughtered. Next 100 move in, get slaughtered... players complain.


At the absolute very least, the maximum has to count seperately per side. Everything else is a bad idea.

My apologies, I was under the impression that code already counted these things separately by side (or else how would overcrowding be counted?), certainly it would have to be done by side.

If, for instance, only a hundred men were allowed in a single line for a battle in the mountains—what happens if one side has a single unit that has a hundred men in it? Melee combat happens between two units in the same line of battle; how does the game allow any melee combat with that unit?

Just various stuff that would have to be thought about if something like this were to be implemented.

Conceptually, though, I do like it, and have mused on stuff like this in the past myself.

Indeed, counting by side would be needed, or something of that nature.

[Bedwyr]

The Records (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Records_of_BattleMaster#Characters) show that the largest unit ever was 320 men. I would say the smallest width possible could be around 600 men. Then there would always be room for more than one unit, and even with smaller units this corresponds to 12 units of 50 men each, hardly a blob.

I think the goal here would be to replicate Agincourt, not Thermopylae.

I'd love to replicate both, and I would suggest that there are a number of realms where 600 men might be their whole army, especially on a long-distance campaign.  Hell, I remember that when Arcaea was fighting Zonasa on FEI, we only got 1000 men into our army once, every other time was fewer.  Now, granted, we were using mostly high-end troops, but still.

[vonGenf]

At the absolute very least, the maximum has to count seperately per side. Everything else is a bad idea.

That's also how I was thinking about it.

[vonGenf]

I'd love to replicate both, and I would suggest that there are a number of realms where 600 men might be their whole army, especially on a long-distance campaign.  Hell, I remember that when Arcaea was fighting Zonasa on FEI, we only got 1000 men into our army once, every other time was fewer.  Now, granted, we were using mostly high-end troops, but still.

600 men is a small army. I don't mean to say that it's a bad army, just that it's on the smallish side. It's normal for small realm to have small armies; with such a proposal a small realm that succeed in luring its bigger enemy to a mountain region would have a better chance.

Your exemple of Arcaea is also a good example. That was a small (for Arcaea) specialized force of high-end troops. The proposal is exactly aimed at giving more tactical advantage to such armies instead of the big blobs.

As for Thermopylae, if it really happened with numbers even close to what is described in the legends (and even that was 1400 men, 300 only counts the Spartans), it was a freakish battle, and it only worked because they were only fighting with lances and shields and somehow refused to fight at night, therefore giving the Spartans time to recuperate. In medieval times, a catapult would have been used and the pass cleared in a matter of minutes.