I actually posted this on the flanking bonus page but I felt it was completely unrelated to the topic so I am posting it here.
QuoteOh well. Improving AI sounds too much to ask for. Then what about instead of adding flanking we add an ambush feature? Only allow it to be used as a defensive tactic - meaning you can only use it in your own regions.
Once players press the ambush button, their units will become invisible from scouts and region status pages. Also, depending on the region type, the chance of being discovered should change as well. On rural+badland regions, scouts can detect them 40-50% of the time - failed attempts leading to the loss of scouts - maybe not all the time but it can lead to scouts returning with the same information as the region status page. In mountain+forest regions, make the chance of detection much slimmer, something like between 10-25%.
Once ambushing units enter the battle, make the ambushing units hit 1.5-2 times harder and make enemies suffer from significant morale loss while giving them 10-20% withdrawal rate. Or instead of hitting harder, give the ambushing force higher chance to wound nobles?
But if they are detected before being ambushed, make them fight like a normal battle - without the ambushing group knowing they are detected.
To balance things out, maybe limiting how many units can hide at once wouldn't be too bad.
To add more, disabling this option for fortified regions must be added.
Way too overpowered.
First, the discovery chance needs to depend on unit size - much more difficult to hide 100 men than to hide 10. Also, cavalry and units with siege engines should be harder to hide.
Second, I don't think a combat advantage fits. Medieval battles weren't fought that way, they were usually set up for hours before fighting ever started. Plus, having more enemies than you thought you would will usually be enough penalty already. The only effect I see is a moral penalty, and then only if the change is significant (i.e. you face twice as much enemies as you thought you would).
Quote from: Tom on July 05, 2012, 08:31:58 AM
Way too overpowered.
First, the discovery chance needs to depend on unit size - much more difficult to hide 100 men than to hide 10. Also, cavalry and units with siege engines should be harder to hide.
Second, I don't think a combat advantage fits. Medieval battles weren't fought that way, they were usually set up for hours before fighting ever started. Plus, having more enemies than you thought you would will usually be enough penalty already. The only effect I see is a moral penalty, and then only if the change is significant (i.e. you face twice as much enemies as you thought you would).
They never ambushed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ane)
They actually did use ambushes, to great effect.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on July 05, 2012, 08:20:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ane)
They actually did use ambushes, to great effect.
This example is of a commoner "rebel" army successfully ambushing a noblemen-led army. Another example is the Battle of Morgarten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Morgarten).
Concerning the original proposal, I agree it is overpowered. I think however that the "Modify Appearance" option, which does work along those lines (units hit harder than the scouts says) may be slightly underpowered for human troops.
Quote from: vonGenf on July 10, 2012, 11:05:53 AM
Concerning the original proposal, I agree it is overpowered. I think however that the "Modify Appearance" option, which does work along those lines (units hit harder than the scouts says) may be slightly underpowered for human troops.
You are probably right. It shows by the feature not being used much. I will power it up a little.
Where is the "Modify Appearance" feature located? I actually have been looking for it the past few days and couldn't seem to find it. I thought maybe it had been removed.
Quote from: vonGenf on July 10, 2012, 11:05:53 AM
This example is of a commoner "rebel" army successfully ambushing a noblemen-led army. Another example is the Battle of Morgarten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Morgarten).
Concerning the original proposal, I agree it is overpowered. I think however that the "Modify Appearance" option, which does work along those lines (units hit harder than the scouts says) may be slightly underpowered for human troops.
They were led by nobles, if you bothered to actually read the article...
Quote from: Perth on July 10, 2012, 12:22:14 PM
Where is the "Modify Appearance" feature located? I actually have been looking for it the past few days and couldn't seem to find it. I thought maybe it had been removed.
You need to be in a region with a blacksmith, and it should appear on the Orders page.
Quote from: egamma on July 10, 2012, 03:17:22 PM
You need to be in a region with a blacksmith, and it should appear on the Orders page.
Ah, the smithy part is what I was missing.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on July 10, 2012, 12:59:37 PM
They were led by nobles, if you bothered to actually read the article...
I did.
QuoteThe inhabitants of Drenthe were unhappy about their rights and taxation of the Bishop of Utrecht. The local lords of the Drenthe city of Coevorden, though nominally under the authority of the Bishop, began to oppose him.
In BM terms, this is a peasant uprising in a city due to high taxes.
Key words in there. "Local lords of the Drenthe city of Coevorden."
QuoteFrom the middle of the 11th century the Bishops of Utrecht were given the lands of Groningen, Overijssel and Drenthe as a fief by the Holy Roman Emperor. The inhabitants of Drenthe were unhappy about their rights and taxation of the Bishop of Utrecht. The local lords of the Drenthe city of Coevorden, though nominally under the authority of the Bishop, began to oppose him.
The Lord of the Drenth city of Coeverden was Otto II von Lippe, Bishop of Utrecht, and the city was given to him by the Holy Roman Emperor.
Rudolf II van Coeverden was a NPC, as were the other local Lords of Utrecht.
That seems pretty clear to me from the article... I wonder how you read it otherwise? Nowhere does it say that Rudolf was count of Coeverden.
I guess, in BM terms, you should count Otto as Duke of Drenthe, but still there is no mention of Rudolf as anything but a local leader of rebels.
You do realize that knights in BM would be the equivalent of local lords, right? And how he's an NPC in your book I'll never know.
If I recall correctly the ambush function that never got implemented was supposed to make your unit appear behind the enemy in a battle.
I think the camouflage idea alone could allow you to simulate an ambush. With a unit hidden you can catch incoming forces by surprise. This could be done in conjunction with digging in (at a serious penalty to how well hidden you are). There'd be no need for a combat advantage instead it will be up to the player to make sure he's on the right setting. If you ambush a superior force you'd better set your unit for a low casualty withdrawal.
After reading some posts I would like to suggest two things over my original post.
Instead of giving bonuses, maybe changing positions might be better.
When you get ambushed, randomly shuffle the settings of the army getting ambushed? Maybe you will get cavalries in the front instead of having them in rear? + But let nobles with high leadership to keep their settings?
or
Make the ambushing army fight randomly picked TLs? But limit it so that you only fight the same number of TLs?
EX) If you ambush with 10 TLs, you face 10 TLs randomly selected from your enemy's army?
Quote from: Zakilevo on July 11, 2012, 03:30:00 AM
Make the ambushing army fight randomly picked TLs? But limit it so that you only fight the same number of TLs?
EX) If you ambush with 10 TLs, you face 10 TLs randomly selected from your enemy's army?
+1 to this part. I agree we should be able to ambush enemy and they will most likely caught with their pants down. Perhaps we can borrow some coding or concept from how infiltrator attack on noble who is surprised.
If there was a way for troops to ambush in that way, attacking an equal number of enemy units and ignoring everyone else, that could really hurt the whole blob problem. I would suggest that the ambushed troops should start off in the wrong settings. Unless the TL has high leadership, or perhaps it should be based on the captain.
Quote from: Charles on July 21, 2012, 02:38:17 AM
If there was a way for troops to ambush in that way, attacking an equal number of enemy units and ignoring everyone else, that could really hurt the whole blob problem. I would suggest that the ambushed troops should start off in the wrong settings. Unless the TL has high leadership, or perhaps it should be based on the captain.
Yes, leadership should matter. People with higher leadership than the ambushing force should either be excluded or not affected by the ambush.
The problem is having one side start off in the wrong settings is basically an automatic win for the other side, unless the numbers are hugely skewed. I'm sure we've all fought battles where one army with the wrong setting has turned what should have been a win into a bad loss.
There should be some way to counter the ambush. Like I said before, giving scouts a certain percentage to discover an ambush might be a good idea.
I see how mixing up someone's settings would cause them to lose the battle, I think that was the whole purpose of an ambush. Catch them off guard. No time to set up lines. Why is this a problem? Have we not been looking for something that allows a realm with very few troops to gain an upper hand?
One thing that I would highly suggest for ambushes, the attackers gain no Honour or Prestige in the battle, where as the defenders gain more than usual for surviving it (if they do).
Quote from: Charles on July 21, 2012, 06:04:41 AM
I see how mixing up someone's settings would cause them to lose the battle, I think that was the whole purpose of an ambush. Catch them off guard. No time to set up lines. Why is this a problem? Have we not been looking for something that allows a realm with very few troops to gain an upper hand?
One thing that I would highly suggest for ambushes, the attackers gain no Honour or Prestige in the battle, where as the defenders gain more than usual for surviving it (if they do).
I fully agree. It is not honourable at all. If possible, you should try to hide your name as well.
To summarize everything,
1) Ambushers should be hidden from scout reports until they are revealed by scouts - with a certain chances.
2) Only a certain number of TLs can set up an ambush in the same region.
3) Scouts can reveal them without letting ambushers knowing. If the ambushing party doesn't leave the region until next turn, they will engage in a normal battle with lowered morale.
4) If ambushed, the defending force - randomly selected, and the number is decided by the number of the ambushing force - will fight in random settings with lowered morale, however, TLs with high enough leadership skill can avoid this.
5) The ambushing party gains no honour or prestige.
6) Names will be randomly revealed.
Quote from: Charles on July 21, 2012, 06:04:41 AM
Why is this a problem? Have we not been looking for something that allows a realm with very few troops to gain an upper hand?
Think about this two realms, named A and B, are about to battle at region C. Realm A does an ambush and conceals 3k CS of their 13k CS total at C, and B has 9k CS. Now the smaller army that thought they would have a chance at winning or just a minor loss, got a huge loss. So even though it can help a realm with less troops it also helps realms with a more troops too so you can't say this a good feature just because it gives less troops the upper hand, it gives either side the chance a bonus. One issue with this is, other than no honor or prestige, there is no reason not to always put troops to ambush because it only helps the side that does it because nothing is bad about doing this in battle. So this seems like an overpowered feature.
Quote from: Penchant on July 21, 2012, 06:31:11 AM
Think about this two realms, named A and B, are about to battle at region C. Realm A does an ambush and conceals 3k CS of their 13k CS total at C, and B has 9k CS. Now the smaller army that thought they would have a chance at winning or just a minor loss, got a huge loss. So even though it can help a realm with less troops it also helps realms with a more troops too so you can't say this a good feature just because it gives less troops the upper hand, it gives either side the chance a bonus. One issue with this is, other than no honor or prestige, there is no reason not to always put troops to ambush because it only helps the side that does it because nothing is bad about doing this in battle. So this seems like an overpowered feature.
How about giving the defenders a choice to either avoid the ambushing force or fight the ambushing force first once they discover the ambush? Give this choice to marshals maybe?
If the marshal of the defenders choose to fight the ambushing force, let his entire army face the ambushing force. If the marshal choose to avoid the ambushing army, let his army face his enemy directly. But the enemy army which set the ambush will have to fight without the army they have assigned for the ambush.
Or we can simply make people be only able to set ambushes in certain region types like mountains and forests.
Quote from: Charles on July 21, 2012, 06:04:41 AM
I see how mixing up someone's settings would cause them to lose the battle, I think that was the whole purpose of an ambush. Catch them off guard. No time to set up lines. Why is this a problem? Have we not been looking for something that allows a realm with very few troops to gain an upper hand?
One thing that I would highly suggest for ambushes, the attackers gain no Honour or Prestige in the battle, where as the defenders gain more than usual for surviving it (if they do).
Because there's a difference between giving someone an advantage and giving someone an automatic win.
Quote from: Velax on July 21, 2012, 07:12:30 AM
Because there's a difference between giving someone an advantage and giving someone an automatic win.
+1
IMO, just having your forces invisible is quite the advantage.
Quote from: Penchant on July 21, 2012, 07:28:12 AM
IMO, just having your forces invisible is quite the advantage.
And a lot easier to code. Simple is the new black.
Quote from: Tom on July 21, 2012, 08:52:04 AM
And a lot easier to code. Simple is the new black.
Keep forgetting about coding :o. Now the problem is how much CS to allow I think. Let's just simply let marshals hide 25% of their men?
It should go by men, not CS. 100 peasants (CS 600) are more difficult to hide than 50 mercenaries (CS 800).
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?
Quote from: Tom on July 21, 2012, 10:12:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Lefanis on July 21, 2012, 10:20:03 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Tom on July 21, 2012, 10:54:10 PM
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...
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.
Quote from: Tom on July 22, 2012, 02:48:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Tom on July 22, 2012, 02:48:09 AM
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Charles on July 22, 2012, 06:37:13 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Tom on July 22, 2012, 10:32:24 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Duvaille on July 23, 2012, 04:40:51 PM
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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush (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.
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.
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?
It makes the game better by making different terrain types have different inherent tactical values. It is easier to ambush in forests and mountains.
Quote from: Tom on July 23, 2012, 07:26:28 PM
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.
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).
Quote from: Tom on July 23, 2012, 07:26:28 PM
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.
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.
That would ... require them to know the ambush is there. Making it ... not an ambush.
... 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.
The purpose of an ambush is to allow a small force to inflict a disproportionate amount of damage on a larger force without taking commensurate casualties itself.
Regarding the "to fight blobbing" postings - I do think that auto-withdrawl is the better option there. The problem is not that the larger army does more damage (it should), but that it wipes out the defenders. That leads to people always blobbing around because being hit by the enemy blob in small units is suicide.
Regarding the disproportionate damage - I agree on that as a purpose. It has to come at a price, though, otherwise people will use it all the time.
One thing has not been mentioned: To engage the enemy archers in melee combat without having to cut down all their melee troops first. This is also the idea of flanking, to a degree.
I suggest we merge these two ideas. I don't think a real ambush mechanic will work in BM. We don't simulate army movement in enough detail right now for it to work nicely, and adding that would be a lot of work.
But how about setting up "flanking maneuver" as a combat option, maybe a deployment setting? Give it a chance of discovery. If you are discovered, your unit starts at the very back of your own army deployment zone, as it has to maneuver back to its own army. If you succeed, you start behind the ENEMY deployment zone, and will probably hit their archers in the back within 2 turns.
Fairly easy to implement, allows a small force to do disproportionate damage (melee troops engaging archers are usually a slaughter), adds a risk factor, and with a bit of strategy (one bait unit deployed regularily, two flanking units) you have a nice trap for the enemy blob.
Don't people usually put cavalry units at the back as well? It would be good to appear behind your enemy's hard hitters.
Also, how many units will appear from the behind? If it isn't enough, it will be nothing more than throwing your units to enemy archers.
Quote from: Zakilevo on July 24, 2012, 09:01:58 AM
Also, how many units will appear from the behind? If it isn't enough, it will be nothing more than throwing your units to enemy archers.
That's the risk part. If the ambush doesn't work right, then these troops are lost already and you've just reduced your forces for no effect.
Also, it seems it would be rather useless against an infantry heavy army. Small realms won't stand a chance even with this new feature.
I beg to differ. Cavalry can wipe the floor with an infantry army that doesn't use the correct settings. And a larger realm should beat a smaller realm when competency is equivalent.
Quote from: Zakilevo on July 24, 2012, 10:01:26 AM
Also, it seems it would be rather useless against an infantry heavy army.
If your opponent uses heavy infantry, destroy their infantry RC.
If your opponent uses heavy infantry, deploy your units in box formation.
If your opponent uses heavy infantry, deploy your archers in the rear and rain arrows while they walk all the way to you.
If your opponent takes the clue and stops using heavy infantry, use ambushes.
Quote
Small realms won't stand a chance even with this new feature.
The point is not to give an automatic win to smaller realm. The point is to allow more tactics such that a better tactician can still win with inferior forces.
the reason i mentioned lower morale... is that it might be possible to force the enemy to retreat very early? so if you survive the 1st contact, you might route their mostly retreated army?
the thing about placing them behind enemy lines... do enemy archers shoot in the "correct" direction only? and i guess the ambushing units will always move in the "wrong" direction? will they end up charging through enemy lines, own lines and then off the battlefield? (can you even charge off the battlefield nowadays?) will the bits of the ambushed side move in the "wrong" direction to defend against the ambushers?
Quote from: fodder on July 24, 2012, 08:31:21 PM
the reason i mentioned lower morale... is that it might be possible to force the enemy to retreat very early? so if you survive the 1st contact, you might route their mostly retreated army?
I think that this would be a good detail to add to whatever the final implementation ends up being. Getting ambushed can, indeed, be very demoralizing, and it ought to make it much more likely for the ambushees to retreat early.