Maximum battle width depends on region type

[Eldargard]

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.

No, the big blobs still have a place in the rurals. It just beans that the big blob will not be effective everywhere.

[Eldargard]

I just want to mention that I love this idea. I like how it gives a little more strategy to think of while not becoming too cumbersome. I like that it would encourage a variety of unit qualities to be used in a realm. I like that the feature focuses not on unite type but on unit quality. I realize that there are some pieces that could be gamed but I think this could make the game 32.7% better. Even if I am on the losing end!

[egamma]

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2889.msg65990.html#msg65990

[Bedwyr]

The proposal is exactly aimed at giving more tactical advantage to such armies instead of the big blobs.

Not quite.  It's designed to give tactical advantages to such armies as well as big blobs, depending on the situation.  Yes, it does make blobs no longer the king of all armies, but there will still be a place for ravening hordes.

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.

This is indeed all true, but the precise size is something I'm more than happy to compromise on, and I think will probably need tweaking in any case.

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2889.msg65990.html#msg65990

Egamma, while I think your idea, if implemented and tweaked a bit, might well be considerably more awesome than mine, it has to be a coding nightmare.  The purpose of my push here is to find things that will help and be (relatively) easy to code, and it looks like this might fit the bill.

[vonGenf]

This is indeed all true, but the precise size is something I'm more than happy to compromise on, and I think will probably need tweaking in any case.

When I think of Thermopylae in BM terms, I think of a single unit holding off an entire army. I think that's what I want to avoid. Even with crazy oversized units, the width should be large enough that more than one unit fits the field at all time to retain the flavor of BM battles.

[egamma]

Egamma, while I think your idea, if implemented and tweaked a bit, might well be considerably more awesome than mine, it has to be a coding nightmare.  The purpose of my push here is to find things that will help and be (relatively) easy to code, and it looks like this might fit the bill.

Hey, anything is better than what we have.

[Dante Silverfire]

One of the "Problems" with this proposal is how it will interact with "time limited" battles. I believe that currently battles go to a "draw" if it lasts too many turns, or too long in general. I haven't seen this recently, but I could have sworn I saw it once long ago.

If we implement limits on the amount of fighting that can happen each turn, it is very possible that battles simply never get resolved. If you have 3000 men vs 3000 men in a location with a line width of 250, you'd never finish the battle. It would take ages upon ages to finish. Granted, this helps archers, but it still wouldn't work out very well in general under those circumstances.

Just something that needs consideration.

[Indirik]

Battles stop after 20 rounds, with an "indecisive" conclusion.

Personally, I don't really see this as a problem. Does it matter if a battle in the mountain pass takes 3 days to resolve?

[Bedwyr]

When I think of Thermopylae in BM terms, I think of a single unit holding off an entire army. I think that's what I want to avoid. Even with crazy oversized units, the width should be large enough that more than one unit fits the field at all time to retain the flavor of BM battles.

Ah!  No, no indeed.  I was personally thinking that 300 would be a nice number for Mountains.  I realize that it is indeed possible to have a unit of three hundred men, but I've seen any number of armies in the game smaller than that, and the symbolism appeals.

If we implement limits on the amount of fighting that can happen each turn, it is very possible that battles simply never get resolved. If you have 3000 men vs 3000 men in a location with a line width of 250, you'd never finish the battle.

You'd have to retreat from equipment damage before a victory for one side or the other occurred, I would guess.  As Indirik said, I don't see this as a problem.  It would be incredibly damaging to your equipment, and having a region that one could actually contest for days opens up all kinds of possibilities.  We currently don't really have scenarios where fighting lasts beyond a day, this could introduce some interesting scenarios.

[Indirik]

It would be incredibly damaging to your equipment, and having a region that one could actually contest for days opens up all kinds of possibilities.  We currently don't really have scenarios where fighting lasts beyond a day, this could introduce some interesting scenarios.

I think the most consecutive turns I've ever seen battle go, where both sides are really trying to win it, is three. These have been some heavy duty stronghold sieges. I don't think I've seen any open field battles last longer than two. After that, any battles are just people trying to get away, but get caught. It would be interesting to see some options where battle routinely last longer than one turn.

What effect do you think that fortifications would have on things? A fortified castle or town can be completely surrounded, and should probably open the battlefield much wider.

[Dante Silverfire]

There was a 3-turn open field fight between CE and co vs Darka and BoM fairly recently on AT.

[vonGenf]

Ah!  No, no indeed.  I was personally thinking that 300 would be a nice number for Mountains.  I realize that it is indeed possible to have a unit of three hundred men, but I've seen any number of armies in the game smaller than that, and the symbolism appeals.

I picked 300 from the Records page, but I have to admit I've never seen a unit with more than 150 soldiers. We can probably remove the freak datapoints from consideration.

[Indirik]

There was a 3-turn open field fight between CE and co vs Darka and BoM fairly recently on AT.

Were both sides truly invested in winning it, or was the last turn a bunch of stragglers and refugees trying to get away? I don't remember that particular battle. I may have gotten wounded during that. My AT character seems to have a knack for getting wounded, but never dying.

[Indirik]

I picked 300 from the Records page, but I have to admit I've never seen a unit with more than 150 soldiers. We can probably remove the freak datapoints from consideration.

Yeah, some of those extreme records are relics of bygone days that simply can't be duplicated under current rules.

300 per side might be a bit low. But then again, I really don't know much about how many infantry soldiers it takes to hold a line of battle at, say, 200 yards wide.

[Dante Silverfire]

Were both sides truly invested in winning it, or was the last turn a bunch of stragglers and refugees trying to get away? I don't remember that particular battle. I may have gotten wounded during that. My AT character seems to have a knack for getting wounded, but never dying.

Yes, both sides were truly invested in winning it. Darka was the defender. CE and allies attacked the region 3 turns in a row. Each attack they sent in more reinforcements. Darka won the first two battles, and lost the third. Darka retreated after the third battle.

CE and allies had to attack when they did in order to prevent too large of a lopsided battle for the first fight (enemy reinforcements were eminent). So they attacked without full forces on the first fight. Both wides brought in reinforcements on the 2nd, and CE brought in the reinforcements solely on the third.