BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: Bedwyr on November 04, 2011, 05:24:33 AM
-
This is just a general design thing I've been mulling for a while, and I'd like to get it outside my head and see what it looks like.
It was sparked by digging in. Used to be used all the time in the days when people could count on high cohesion on a single turn. Nowadays, I never see it used unless you have at least a day to do it, because you split your melee line otherwise. Cavalry never does, because you want them to charge.
Then I thought about stuff like civil work and police work, where more is better, but less is still better than nothing. And I thought...Why can't digging in be like that?
Why can't it work in the sense of every unit who clicks the button adds to the strength of the fieldworks, that the whole side then gets to use? People would use it a lot more, and it would make far more sense.
Which got me to thinking about different aspects of the game that are similar. Like line settings. There's been a lot of arguments about formations and such, organization coming and going...But what if that worked the same way? Your whole army fights better the more people you have on the right settings, but we stop penalizing people who forget to check, and just have them fight alongside everyone else rather than charging out front like an idiot, or staying behind.
This way you still get bonuses and some penalties, but not the stupid "Yar! I will charge ahead of everyone else in the army because I didn't get the memo!" stuff. Or the "nah, I'll just hang out behind these trenches while the rest of the army gets slaughtered" stuff.
I'm not sure what else this could apply to, but I'm sure there's other stuff.
Thoughts?
-
Great idea, completely supported.
-
how does it work in practice? the marshal does it? majority rules?
what happens when your horses reach the dug in line? is it effective only on defensive settings?
-
Why can't it work in the sense of every unit who clicks the button adds to the strength of the fieldworks, that the whole side then gets to use? People would use it a lot more, and it would make far more sense.
This might be feasible to code.
Your whole army fights better the more people you have on the right settings, but we stop penalizing people who forget to check, and just have them fight alongside everyone else rather than charging out front like an idiot, or staying behind.
This would be fiendishly difficult to code.
There's a reason Organization went away.
-
The problem I see with this is that you would force people to be dug in that may not want that.
Digging in not only gives a defensive bonus, it also affects unit movement. Dug in units wait longer until they advance, for example.
-
The problem I see with this is that you would force people to be dug in that may not want that.
Digging in not only gives a defensive bonus, it also affects unit movement. Dug in units wait longer until they advance, for example.
This is part of the problem, Tom. If you have half your infantry dug in, and the other half not, they will not advance together, and your army can face defeat in detail, when otherwise it might have been able to win.
-
It can also be an advantage if that is exactly what you wanted to do.
-
It was sparked by digging in. Used to be used all the time in the days when people could count on high cohesion on a single turn. Nowadays, I never see it used unless you have at least a day to do it, because you split your melee line otherwise. Cavalry never does, because you want them to charge.
The beginning of your argument is where it falls down. If in the midsts of time when there were even more players to juggle, digging in was a viable method of war, why not now? Though saying that, when was this mythical golden age for successful use of digging in? One of my worst defeats as General of ASI came in August 2006. We were sat in Wynford with Falasan and half our forces had not bothered digging in, allowing Abington a great victory against the odds.
If digging in isn't a regularly used option of warfare these days, it's because the ways of war have changed and the circumstances of its ideal use changed along with it. That or us old folk have too many bad memories and dismiss it's use out of hand, probably quite foolishly. With the reduced numbers of nobles nowadays it would likely be easier to see dig in orders followed en masse than when we were all sat around waiting for battles that would see in excess of 100 nobles present.
Either way, I'm opposed to the idea of single noble being able to click 'Dig in' and then ensuring every single one of the rest of us is behind some kind of fortification. That doesn't change any of the problems to me. You're still going to see war efforts potentially sabotaged by the action/inaction of a handful of nobles. I say leave it as it is. Just because it's there doesn't mean we have to use it and likewise, if we do use it, better prepare ourselves for the chance it could backfire.
-
It can also be an advantage if that is exactly what you wanted to do.
Most of the time, it's not. Blobbing up your units, like it or not, is still the most effective method of winning.
-
Which got me to thinking about different aspects of the game that are similar. Like line settings. There's been a lot of arguments about formations and such, organization coming and going...But what if that worked the same way? Your whole army fights better the more people you have on the right settings, but we stop penalizing people who forget to check, and just have them fight alongside everyone else rather than charging out front like an idiot, or staying behind.
As far as line settings, what you're describing already exist: Marshal formations. So long as there is a marshal with the army, and he has a formation set, then everyone lines up nice and pretty. They don't even have to do anything. The marshal takes care of it.
Yes, some of the marshal settings are not good, but they do what you want. Maybe we can even add an advanced formation that includes digging in. Not sure how that would work due to the hours cost for individual units. I guess all you would really need is a formation where the defenders stay in place, unmoving, for 4 rounds, then charge. Call it "Hold the Line" or something. Then whether the defenders are dug in or not, it doesn't matter, because the lines won't get split.
-
(didn't even realise organisation went away!)
what advantage would splitting into 2 lines of infantry give you? already you have the chance of having some of your line breaking through the enemy line (when you outnumber them or some such?)
-
(didn't even realise organisation went away!)
what advantage would splitting into 2 lines of infantry give you? already you have the chance of having some of your line breaking through the enemy line (when you outnumber them or some such?)
First line hits the enemy, softens them up a lot but might still take too many causulties, just before that happens the second line rushes in and the force of that second charge WILL rout the enemy line somewhat.
Think of Romans, best tactic was to have a deep formation block of infantry and just punch through the lines.
-
fodder was probably more thinking along the lines of "Why would you want to do that in-game", rather than "Why would you want to do that in real life". In the current system, I really don't see any advantage to attacking in waves.
-
But what if one Noble digs in and forces the entire Army to act as if they are behind self-made fortifications? That would potentially penalize everyone because one Noble made a mistake / decided something different (Who will then surely receive a lot of anger towards him from the rest). And if you built some sort of protection for that, where do you draw the line for when selfmade fortifications apply armywide? Perhaps Marshal Settings with a checkbox to make use of any selfmade fortifications?
-
Or what if you roleplay your character as a wild, feckless hero always charging into battle?
I'm thinking French knights at Agincourt.
-
Or what if you roleplay your character as a wild, feckless hero always charging into battle?
I'm thinking French knights at Agincourt.
What if the Marshal roleplayed as only picking those nobles he could trust to follow orders?
It works both ways...
-
It works fails both ways...
ftfy
-
i would imagine it's not going to be tail wagging the dog. insofar as 1 person digging in won't drag everyone else into being dug in. unless it's some marshal thing.
thing with 2 lines is that... you would probably end up taking a lot more damage than if you put the whole force in 1 wave. it's not like the enemy getting hit by each wave would drastically be too tired to fight the subsequent wave.
-
Or what if you roleplay your character as a wild, feckless hero always charging into battle?
I'm thinking French knights at Agincourt.
I think people should make the choice to be crazy, but shouldn't default automatically to craziness. Rather, the more obviously sensible thing should be the default.
Also, I don't really see people RPing like that. I've never seen someone who used the wrong line settings on purpose, and then RP'd it as such.
-
I think people should make the choice to be crazy, but shouldn't default automatically to craziness. Rather, the more obviously sensible thing should be the default.
Also, I don't really see people RPing like that. I've never seen someone who used the wrong line settings on purpose, and then RP'd it as such.
I have.
-
(shrugs) Maybe it wouldn't work well for formations. I think it would make a very big difference for digging in, and while I can't say anything about ASI, Abington used digging in all the time to excellent effect. Then again, we are talking about a hundred nobles in the active army with 100% cohesion and 100% movement rate for over a month once, which in retrospect is more than a little suspicious...Still, the point remains that digging in would work very well this way.
-
in terms of gameplay, what such addition would bring? is it not the whole concept of battles that each noble individually controls troops at his own will, while marshal can impose some overall coordination, not affect troop strength.
the only result what i see is that some eager marshals would appear that would chase people all day to obey.
if you look at some original wiki articles (i don't know whether they still exist or not), there is advice like "complete alignment of troops will not be the best in all situation, sometimes diverse troop settings work better", while in current days i hear many marshals yell on troop leaders that they have to be perfectly aligned.
in times when i was willing to check battle reports in details, i did find out that some misalignment and random troops settings works better in many scenarios.
this, of course, does not mean that each and every troop should have different settings, but does mean that "laboratory" perfection may actually be adverse.
sory, that is my personal feeling that such proposal is leaned towards so-much prevailing hive mentality - any slot in our hive will give one click, and we will reach some bonus for our efforts. collaborative effort in my view is that more players are involved into in-game affairs, one way or another, not more nobles who act like bees.
there is one single trouble i see with digging in currently - when very large army successfully digs in, but one tiny troop of peasant militia puts them out next turn (if large battle does not take place).
something should really be done with that 150 cs vs. 15000 cs. dissolution of small troop and sending them to custody is one step toward that, but i am not aware of thresholds, should be possibly higher.
-
Supposing people started using this tactic dig in tactic and supposing the fieldwork defense mechanism stacked, I forsee a new Cold War.
Right now, defending armies tend to have an advantage anyways. Add fieldworks, a WHOLE REALM digging in behind dirt/wood bunkers and trenches, and nobody would ever want to attack ever, ever again. But that is also supposing nobles continue to use the 'gather in one region, attack other region' tactic pretty much everyone uses nowadays.
As far as line settings, what you're describing already exist: Marshal formations. So long as there is a marshal with the army, and he has a formation set, then everyone lines up nice and pretty. They don't even have to do anything. The marshal takes care of it.
Yes, some of the marshal settings are not good, but they do what you want. Maybe we can even add an advanced formation that includes digging in. Not sure how that would work due to the hours cost for individual units. I guess all you would really need is a formation where the defenders stay in place, unmoving, for 4 rounds, then charge. Call it "Hold the Line" or something. Then whether the defenders are dug in or not, it doesn't matter, because the lines won't get split.
I love this Hold the Line idea though.
-
Supposing people started using this tactic dig in tactic and supposing the fieldwork defense mechanism stacked, I forsee a new Cold War.
Right now, defending armies tend to have an advantage anyways. Add fieldworks, a WHOLE REALM digging in behind dirt/wood bunkers and trenches, and nobody would ever want to attack ever, ever again. But that is also supposing nobles continue to use the 'gather in one region, attack other region' tactic pretty much everyone uses nowadays.
I love this Hold the Line idea though.
Yeah, Hold the Line looked good. But here's the thing about fieldworks...They only protect the region you're in. And if you can find a chokepoint, good for you. But most of the game doesn't really have good chokepoints. And sitting behind your fieldworks while other regions burn will get old really quickly.
-
Yeah, Hold the Line looked good. But here's the thing about fieldworks...They only protect the region you're in. And if you can find a chokepoint, good for you. But most of the game doesn't really have good chokepoints. And sitting behind your fieldworks while other regions burn will get old really quickly.
Which is why I threw in the ''supposing nobles continue to use the 'gather in one region, attack other region' tactic' comment. I would like to see more fluid battles and more interesting tactics. Fieldworks might be a good catalyst to do that, but, then again, it might not.
There are definitely both pros and cons to fieldworks. And if we flesh it out and work out the kinks(like how one noble could cause an entire army to win or lose...), maybe it can be administered. But for now, it's in idea mode and I am pointing out the pros and cons.
-
As far as line settings, what you're describing already exist: Marshal formations. So long as there is a marshal with the army, and he has a formation set, then everyone lines up nice and pretty. They don't even have to do anything. The marshal takes care of it.
Yes, some of the marshal settings are not good, but they do what you want. Maybe we can even add an advanced formation that includes digging in. Not sure how that would work due to the hours cost for individual units. I guess all you would really need is a formation where the defenders stay in place, unmoving, for 4 rounds, then charge. Call it "Hold the Line" or something. Then whether the defenders are dug in or not, it doesn't matter, because the lines won't get split.
Except that MI and SF don't follow marshal formations, and that most marshal formations suck.
Marshal formations need to be fully customizable (low leadership score could restrict some options). What's the point of them if there's only 1 decent attack and 1 decent defense formation, when MI and SF aren't affected, and when one turn's attackers are usually the next turn's defenders if they win (and where the archers and inf are inversed for these two okay formations)? You STILL have to give out line settings if you have MI or SF in your army. And why are the defense and attack formations different anyways? If there are no walls, like with most battles, there's absolutely no difference whether one's army is attacking or defending.
Would it be trouble to code? Probably. But it is, imo, worth it. The current formations system is bad.
-
Except that MI and SF don't follow marshal formations, and that most marshal formations suck.
Marshal formations need to be fully customizable (low leadership score could restrict some options). What's the point of them if there's only 1 decent attack and 1 decent defense formation, when MI and SF aren't affected, and when one turn's attackers are usually the next turn's defenders if they win (and where the archers and inf are inversed for these two okay formations)? You STILL have to give out line settings if you have MI or SF in your army. And why are the defense and attack formations different anyways? If there are no walls, like with most battles, there's absolutely no difference whether one's army is attacking or defending.
Would it be trouble to code? Probably. But it is, imo, worth it. The current formations system is bad.
We have plans to both provide dramatically improved formations (with Hold the Line or something similar being one of them) and allow customizable formations of some form.
That form may end up being a suggestion form for formations that we approve and add into the game; however, there's also a good chance it will be more like what you have in mind. Or maybe even some of both.
-
Except that MI and SF don't follow marshal formations, and that most marshal formations suck.
In a roundabout way, I kind of said the same thing. Yes, the current crop of formations are not very good because they are based on the old battle system. The formations exploit limitations of the old system that don't apply to the new.
As for the MI/SF ignoring the settings, I don't think that's what really happens. I have seen the reports of it, but I'm not convinced that they are correct. Rather, the system does not account for them properly. They line up in formation, just not where you'd want them to line up
Marshal formations need to be fully customizable (low leadership score could restrict some options). ...snip...
Would it be trouble to code? Probably. But it is, imo, worth it. The current formations system is bad.
Ideally, that would probably be best. realistically, probably won't happen. It would be much easier, and more likely to happen, if someone would develop and lay out the new formations they would like to see, and the devs can then code those. Much more likely to happen than a complete rewrite to implement custom formations.
-
In a roundabout way, I kind of said the same thing. Yes, the current crop of formations are not very good because they are based on the old battle system. The formations exploit limitations of the old system that don't apply to the new.
As for the MI/SF ignoring the settings, I don't think that's what really happens. I have seen the reports of it, but I'm not convinced that they are correct. Rather, the system does not account for them properly. They line up in formation, just not where you'd want them to line up
Ideally, that would probably be best. realistically, probably won't happen. It would be much easier, and more likely to happen, if someone would develop and lay out the new formations they would like to see, and the devs can then code those. Much more likely to happen than a complete rewrite to implement custom formations.
I would rather not develop the marshal formations into a rock-paper-scissors game, with multiple "good" formations each having an obvious advantage over the others. A fully customizable system is, imo, a million times better than a very flexible one. Yes, I'm a bit picky with this, but pre-made settings limit the marshals' opportunities to be creative and to set themselves apart. I realize it's probably a lot of trouble, but I believe it is quite worth it.
As for MI/SF, I have trouble remembering the specifics. It might be that some (or all) of them follow archer settings. Which is indeed quite dumb, as they almost always move forward as infantry do, making them either arrive late or arrive first and get slaughtered. I would rather MI and ranged SF be treated differently than all others, but otherwise treating them as infantry would have been the best compromise.
-
I would rather not develop the marshal formations into a rock-paper-scissors game, with multiple "good" formations each having an obvious advantage over the others. A fully customizable system is, imo, a million times better than a very flexible one. Yes, I'm a bit picky with this, but pre-made settings limit the marshals' opportunities to be creative and to set themselves apart. I realize it's probably a lot of trouble, but I believe it is quite worth it.
Ideally, that would probably be best. Realistically, probably won't happen. It would be much easier, and more likely to happen, if someone would develop and lay out the new formations they would like to see, and the devs can then code those. Much more likely to happen than a complete rewrite to implement custom formations.
-
Atamara: http://battlemaster.org/ShowScribeNote.php?ID=849197&Hash=b7822bae33970e2e
MI set to Aggressive/Front. They step forward, nobody else does, 1399 arrows turn my unit (#12) into a pincushion.
-
I still think it'd be a worthwhile long-term project, regardless.
-
MI set to Aggressive/Front. They step forward, nobody else does, 1399 arrows turn my unit (#12) into a pincushion.
So... I guess they let you down after all, huh? ;D
Anyway, that's not a formation failure. That's an MI logic failure. I thought that had been fixed with the latest changes to ranged units that make them fire for as long as they have a target, rather than advance. Maybe that hasn't made it to stable yet?
-
So... I guess they let you down after all, huh? ;D
Anyway, that's not a formation failure. That's an MI logic failure.
...Or it's that the MI have a shorter range than the other ranged units around them.
I thought that had been fixed with the latest changes to ranged units that make them fire for as long as they have a target, rather than advance. Maybe that hasn't made it to stable yet?
No, I don't think it has. I still need to find out why the fire-into-melee bit is only doing 1 damage :-\