Skill Advancement

[Eirikr]

Yeah, fair enough. I think I gave the impression of more distance than I meant; of course if the other army presses hard enough, they're going to come after the knights and nobles when they break through, but said knights and nobles wouldn't intentionally go into the thick of it until a very specific point.

However, that gives me an idea, since you (logically so) point out that the distance was probably based on title - maybe give basic knights in the game a small strength boost that they lose with a lordship or other position? Some semblance of stepping in or out of the actual fighting. It's not really a balancing bonus between lords and knights, but at least it gives the knights a little more something if they can't become lords.

EDIT: And maybe a new player helper as well, if you make the loss of the bonus permanent upon gaining a position.

[Chenier]

I'm no expert in the matter, but I don't believe nobles were actually that far from the battle. After all, there were no radios back then.

[Indirik]

Signal horns. Flags.

[Constantine]

Runners.

[Eirikr]

As above.

Trumpets (Europe) and drums (Asia) as well.

[Chenier]

As above.

Trumpets (Europe) and drums (Asia) as well.

These are tools with great limitation.

They don't allow the same kind of micromanagement that radios with private channels allow. They also compete with each other for being heard and understood, on top of all of the other noises caused by all the metal equipment used on the battlefield.

[De-Legro]

These are tools with great limitation.

They don't allow the same kind of micromanagement that radios with private channels allow. They also compete with each other for being heard and understood, on top of all of the other noises caused by all the metal equipment used on the battlefield.

As well as the fact that armies were often largely levy based, this we limitations are reasons that battles were not micromanaged in the same way they are today. Generals needed simple sets of instructions that could easily be conveyed and understood in order to exercise any control at all. Often things like a banner for each unit would be used for instance to signal when to advance. When your unit banner was waved or dipped you knew what to do.

These are also one reason why battle "tactics" were employed early while there was still a good chance the parts of the army would receive the message. Once the battle had most combatants committed orders beyond retreat were difficult. That said we are not talking apple and apples. Knights and lords didn't lead their units, if they were to take the field they would mostly do so in formation together in heavy cav formations. You don't waste men capable of affording heavy horse and armour leading pikemen.

In a battlemaster context I think it is obviously that all noble fight with their unit, since all can be wounded when the unit is struck. Hero's are simply in the front rank while other nobles may be in ranks towards the back.

[Eirikr]

These are tools with great limitation.

They don't allow the same kind of micromanagement that radios with private channels allow. They also compete with each other for being heard and understood, on top of all of the other noises caused by all the metal equipment used on the battlefield.

I'm not sure where the idea of radios came from... What I'd suggested was more like 30 feet (10m) behind the back of the troops. Easily heard, easily seen. Imprecise, yes, but what other way did they have?

Also, still very much in an area to be easily wounded.

[Chenier]

I'm not sure where the idea of radios came from... What I'd suggested was more like 30 feet (10m) behind the back of the troops. Easily heard, easily seen. Imprecise, yes, but what other way did they have?

Also, still very much in an area to be easily wounded.

The closer you are to the front, the better you can communicate... and the greater the odds that you do fighting yourself as well.

You can't have perfect communication and be completely safe from combat. Especially not in those times.

[Eldargard]

I can not possibly imagine that a group of soldiers in the heat of battle, fighting for their lives using things like metal weapons and armor (that make quite a racket when banged together) are likely to even hear the commands hollered by a nobleman standing THIRTY feet to their rear and think it even less likely that they would much care.

Herman stumbled as one of the Evilites bashed their sword against his shield again. Somehow, Herman thought he has heard Sir Noisy yelling something about "left". Move left? Face left? Herman did not spend much time thinking about it either. Herman had more immediate problems. The damned Evilite before him was skilled, strong and determined. It would take all Herman had to not die in the next few moments. Unless Herman heard the unambiguous horn blasts that signified retreat, Sir Noisy could worry about "left" all he wanted while the rest of us just tried to stay alive.

[De-Legro]

I can not possibly imagine that a group of soldiers in the heat of battle, fighting for their lives using things like metal weapons and armor (that make quite a racket when banged together) are likely to even hear the commands hollered by a nobleman standing THIRTY feet to their rear and think it even less likely that they would much care.

Herman stumbled as one of the Evilites bashed their sword against his shield again. Somehow, Herman thought he has heard Sir Noisy yelling something about "left". Move left? Face left? Herman did not spend much time thinking about it either. Herman had more immediate problems. The damned Evilite before him was skilled, strong and determined. It would take all Herman had to not die in the next few moments. Unless Herman heard the unambiguous horn blasts that signified retreat, Sir Noisy could worry about "left" all he wanted while the rest of us just tried to stay alive.

Exactly, and exactly why a melee is generally not a very ordered thing, it is a free for all. Part of the success of armies like the Roman forces where that they were trained to maintain formation for as long as possible when a melee was joined, but even they had difficulties with communicating to a unit that had engaged in close combat simply because once that happens you are talking the sound of metal on metal and men yelling/screaming in general. It doesn't matter how close you are once this happens, chances are slight that any sizable part of the force will receive the commands, and even if they do how do they enact them when everyone is struggling simply to spot and react to the next angle of attack?

Even in modern warfare, with the exception of those nice demonstration forces where every soldier has their own radio, which is not a reality for most 1st world armies, orders from a lieutenant are next to impossible to "hear". We were trained to constantly look to the closest command element (corporal, sergeant, lieutenant) in order to receive good old hand signal orders once battle was joined, something that even many professionally trained and experienced troopers would forget to do once they had bullets and other ordinance to worry about. There is not nor has ever been any form of perfect communication with soldiers that are actively engaged in fighting, military doctrines generally accept this and strategy is based upon the assumption that once forces engage you probably will not be able to issue new orders.

[Eldargard]

This is why I think that the idea of a troop leader hanging back and commanding their forces is kind of silly. Sure, they certainly can hang back. They can even try and give orders and all that. Practically, however, once they have positioned their men and overseen the advance I doubt that they would be able to do much "leading". They can be their to provide a good example, shore up weak points, and even sound a retreat but I can not imagine much else.

As far as how realistic it is that nobles gain skill in swordfighting/jousting by being in battle, I am not sure it is really all that important. Though I feel it is historically feasibly, the truly important part is how it fit's into the game. I think that having a roughly 90% chance that a noble will gain a skill (swordfighting, jousting or leadershipp) just for having their unit engage another unit in battle would be a positive change and make for better game play.

I even think that the odds I proposed in a prior post (with a few adjustments listed below) would make for a good starting point. I went ahead and wrote them out again with said adjustments and would like to hear what others think of the system.

I personally think that it would make participating in battle a more attractive option that going to the academy is, especially at higher levels.

I think that it will make battles more important to characters as they would be a great way to develop your character.

I think that it will help ensure that the best warriors (in terms of weapon skill) and leaders are the nobles that participated most in battles.

I think it will decrease the likely hood of nobles sitting in the capital spending mountains of gold at the academy instead of joining the rest of the realm in war (not saying that this is a real problem but will admit that I have had the temptation to do so myself on occasion).

I think that the progression rate is good. The chances of skill increase would raise dramatically but is still low enough that the academy still retains some value and that it is unlikely that someone could "game" the system. In a scenario in which a player tries his best to optimize his characters skill gain in a single skill (hero, leading infantry, trying to up his swordsmanship), that it would take an average of 143+ battles to max out their swordsmanship assuming their unit engaged another unit in every battle (167+ battles for non Heroes). A character participating that many battles deserves a maxed out skill in my opinion.

I think that it also models the idea that training + experience leads to the best warriors as training at the academy would still be lucrative in the beginning while real world battles might prove more, or at least equally, profitable as skill levels become high.

• If a character's unit does not encounter another unit in battle, 30% chance of Leadership increase, 70% chance nothing increases.


• If a character leading cavalry manages a successfully charge but does not engage in any other non-charge combat, 60% change of Jousting increase and 30% chance of Leadership increase, 10% chance nothing increases.


• If a character leading cavalry manages a successfully charge AND engages in other non-charge combat, 30% change of Jousting increase, 30% chance of swordfighting increase and 30% chance of Leadership increase, 10% chance nothing increases.


• If a character's non-cavalry unit encounters another unit in a battle or if their cavalry unit engages in non-charge melee only, 60% change of Swordsmanship increase and 30% chance of Leadership increase, 10% chance nothing increases.


• By meeting another unit in battle, I mean that the two units engage in melee combat.


• If the character is a hero, increase the chance of a fighting skill increase by 10%. This means that the hero has a 100% chance of skill increase compared to other classes which only have a 90% chance. This also only applies if the Hero's unit meets another unit in battle.


• Any existing class rules that determine how a particular characters skills affect unit CS, willingness to stay and fight and all that should remain.

[De-Legro]

As far as how realistic it is that nobles gain skill in swordfighting/jousting by being in battle, I am not sure it is really all that important. Though I feel it is historically feasibly, the truly important part is how it fit's into the game. I think that having a roughly 90% chance that a noble will gain a skill (swordfighting, jousting or leadershipp) just for having their unit engage another unit in battle would be a positive change and make for better game play.

I think 90% is going to be far too much. In a week just fighting rogues that means I might be able to gain 5% or more. That would completely destroy the achievement of high skills. I assume that this is also supposed to scale with skill level, just as skill gain does currently throughout the game.

I even think that the odds I proposed in a prior post (with a few adjustments listed below) would make for a good starting point. I went ahead and wrote them out again with said adjustments and would like to hear what others think of the system.

I personally think that it would make participating in battle a more attractive option that going to the academy is, especially at higher levels.

I think that it will make battles more important to characters as they would be a great way to develop your character.

I think that it will help ensure that the best warriors (in terms of weapon skill) and leaders are the nobles that participated most in battles.

My problem with this is not so much the concept, as the fact that the game lumps weapon skill into one category. The skill in using a blade in combat, and the skill of high proficiency with a blade in 1 v 1 noble combat are related, but especially at high levels extremely divergent. Being supreme at general melee should not automatically make you supreme at 1 v 1 duels.

I think it will decrease the likely hood of nobles sitting in the capital spending mountains of gold at the academy instead of joining the rest of the realm in war (not saying that this is a real problem but will admit that I have had the temptation to do so myself on occasion).

Its not a real problem. You see some people do it, particularly those training towards a infiltrator, but it is in no way so prevalent that it requires a fix. If people are wasting time training when you are at war, their are already player based mechanics to influence that.

I think that the progression rate is good. The chances of skill increase would raise dramatically but is still low enough that the academy still retains some value and that it is unlikely that someone could "game" the system. In a scenario in which a player tries his best to optimize his characters skill gain in a single skill (hero, leading infantry, trying to up his swordsmanship), that it would take an average of 143+ battles to max out their swordsmanship assuming their unit engaged another unit in every battle (167+ battles for non Heroes). A character participating that many battles deserves a maxed out skill in my opinion.

I think that it also models the idea that training + experience leads to the best warriors as training at the academy would still be lucrative in the beginning while real world battles might prove more, or at least equally, profitable as skill levels become high.

This is not really accurate. No amount of training will make you excel in real combat, just as no amount of training with wooden training dummies will make you excel in a real duel. However basic training + experience will likewise in all but exceptional cases never make you a master of the art either. Real progression would be closer to a training then experience cycle, putting what you have learnt into practical application to master that aspect, before studying further finesse or other aspects and then going out to learn the practical application of that.

Also don't look at how many battles it takes to "max" a skill, because by default we want very few people to max the skill, we probably want only a small percentage of the characters to even have "high" skill, otherwise it devalues the entire point of calling them skilled. Look at the amount of battles required to gain whatever is deemed to be the "Average" skill.

[Eldargard]

I am not in the best position to know how many battles per week the average character partakes in, but I can honestly say that I have never had a character fighting five battles a week. I doubt that is sustainable. I am willing to bet that the average is closer to 1.5 a week and this may be high. Even with two a week, it would take 83 weeks to max out swordfighting. That is right about 1 year and 7 months. Honestly, I am pretty sure that one can gain similar levels more quickly just by being rich and spending all their money at the academy. Participating in battles would really be a much more preferred option in my opinion.

Regarding how many characters we want to see reach the skill cap, I am not sure why this is so important regarding warrior skills but seems to be not a concern for oration.

[Chenier]

Also don't look at how many battles it takes to "max" a skill, because by default we want very few people to max the skill, we probably want only a small percentage of the characters to even have "high" skill, otherwise it devalues the entire point of calling them skilled. Look at the amount of battles required to gain whatever is deemed to be the "Average" skill.

Feels kind of wrong, though, that the elite swordsmen will be those that will have spent their lives at the academy, doing little of anything else, and (more recently) ex-advies (though even then, my own ex-advies who had done nothing else than hunting for years did not end up with the high skills ex-advies are often reputed to have).

Maybe it makes sense realism-wise (debatable)... but gameplay-wise, it doesn't. The academy should be for peacetime when there's nothing better to do, it shouldn't be the most efficient way of achieving anything.

Characters who end up being badasses with swords should be made so only by playing as badasses with swords. And that means by taking risks. Either by allowing "prudence" settings for battles that allow nobles to lead their units' charges for high chances of increased swordfighting skill and wounding, dramatically increasing swordfighting gains by heroes, or attributing swordfighting gains and risks with other activities, such as looting (a warlord who plunders a village is likely to get his own hands dirty as well).

Academies should be the slowest and least efficient paths to high skill levels. As they work now, too many are content to have long periods of peace, or indeed work towards quelling all attempts to liven things up, because they want to sit on large revenues just to train their infiltrators or the like. This egoistical behavior does not create fun for others.