BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: Bedwyr on March 03, 2013, 02:54:55 AM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So will it more like forcing the attacking force to attack in waves? Instead of the current 'everyone in the front'?
-
I like it, but it will be simple to encode???
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Records (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Records_of_BattleMaster#Characters (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2889.msg65990.html#msg65990 (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2889.msg65990.html#msg65990)
-
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 (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.
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
There was a 3-turn open field fight between CE and co vs Darka and BoM fairly recently on AT.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
People occupy more spaces than you might think.
Even if you put people beside each other, shoulder to shoulder, each person will occupy at least 50 cm. That is without any armour or equipment on them. If they are wearing chain mails and other defensive equipment, they will need at least half a meter to a meter or even two meters to move freely. If you put 300 men in a line, you will need at least 300 meters to align them( if you consider each person needs a meter of space). You won't find such space in a mountain or a forest region that often.
-
I think i understand the idea, and sound interesting. Since i have no idea about the battle program i am not sure if is easy to work on. Will try to repeat what i try to understand, or what it is suppose to do. maybe with this a new idea comes out...
a) For the main idea to work, the battle program have to calculate each individual/troop by separate.
ex: 100CS 10 man Unit = 10 CS per man.
b) How is the battle calculated? Unit vs Unit? Or each troop by separated, for this idea to be effective, is necessary that the battle is calculated in base of 1 invidual/troop VS the one that it have in front of him.
c) There must be a way determine the winner from the two individuals, in a way that the stronger wins, but get weaker for the next opponent.
Ex: 1 15CS troop fight a 10CS one. Calculating 15>10 but 15-10=5; Then the winner will be the one who had 15, but will have 5CS due to equipment damage fatigue, any excuse to avoid a unbeatable superior unit. (correct me if i am wrong, but i think RISK is like that)
d) Since the region determines the field width, then the line settings will determine what unit fill the front ranks, it can be the ones whoa arrive first, or we can choose the Vanguard settings to do this. But anyways the ranks will be filled, by settings or ramdom, is up to the players to plan beforehand.
Ex: Max field width = 10 (Think in Scale) ;)
Battle: 4 Infantry units vs 3 Enemy Infantry units
1a- 3 men 2a- 6 men
1b- 5 men VS 2b- 5 men
1c- 4 men 2c- 4 men
1d- 7 men
The Field Will be Like this
1c->1a 2a<-2b
1c->1a 2a<-2c
1d->1a 2a<-2c
1d->1b 2a<-2c
1d->1b 2a<-2c
1d->1b VS 2a<-(*)
1d->1b 2b<-(*)
1d->1b 2b<-(*)
1d->1c 2b<-(*)
(*)->1c 2b<-(*)
* Blank Space
The winner of this battle will depend on the CS of each individual unit, remember Numbers doesn't always win battles, but is good to have them!
This is just my idea (or at least interpretation) of how things would go with a With Limited Field which sounds interesting. for a wider example you can use this (Click for Reference (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3869.msg97799.html#msg97799)
Infantry 4555 Men, so in a field with a width of 800, and in case that the forces were split, it will take 5.6 turns for all the infantry to enter the front ranks, of course you have to put into account, the rest of the troop types, but it seems that 5.6 turns is a pretty fast but i am sure that troops CS and numbers will push that a little.
You have to take into account the Archer damage which of course will have a great advantage on this settings since they can do damage and mostly be safe, also Cavalry, SF and MI.
Well i hope we can find a way to change the game for better and more fun (More strategy= more fun). In case that everything in game already works like this, well... sorry i just figured out. but if no, think about it maybe it can help create newer ideas.
Peace!
PS:
Look at me..... what BM makes me do, if i talk like this to my friends they leave me talking alone.....
-
People occupy more spaces than you might think.
Even if you put people beside each other, shoulder to shoulder, each person will occupy at least 50 cm. That is without any armour or equipment on them. If they are wearing chain mails and other defensive equipment, they will need at least half a meter to a meter or even two meters to move freely. If you put 300 men in a line, you will need at least 300 meters to align them( if you consider each person needs a meter of space). You won't find such space in a mountain or a forest region that often.
Open space in a straight line, maybe not. But unless there is some additional terrain restriction in a forest, you can still go around. It would be very hard to constrict the battle to some small front line.
-
If it's separate count, I can see 200-300 being reasonable. So what if a single unit by a battle-worn noble with a gazillion honour is able to take a stand in small mountain regions? There aren't many who are capable of doing this and able to sustain the unit maintenance (have you tried paying/repairing a unit of >100 men?).
-
Open space in a straight line, maybe not. But unless there is some additional terrain restriction in a forest, you can still go around. It would be very hard to constrict the battle to some small front line.
True. Actually in a forest, your front line may stretch since you will have trees between your men.
Mountains usually have narrow paths so those will probably have the smallest space for battles.
-
If it's separate count, I can see 200-300 being reasonable. So what if a single unit by a battle-worn noble with a gazillion honour is able to take a stand in small mountain regions? There aren't many who are capable of doing this and able to sustain the unit maintenance (have you tried paying/repairing a unit of >100 men?).
Exactly. I have to admit that the idea of a Hero making a valiant last stand with his three hundred hard-bitten veterans alongside him gives me all kinds of RP chills, but a large part of that is because it should be damn difficult.
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.
I would suggest that for the first stage of implementation, they function like rurals. In the future, I could see more elaborate ideas, but I am (with great difficulty) trying to keep myself focused.
To that end: I think we have a solid idea. Limiting battle-widths to X number of soldiers per side, with Mountains having the lowest number of X and Rurals having effectively infinite X, and hills/forests/badlands in between. Time to write up a feature request! Now, all of you go discuss the other two ideas and come up with some of your own!
-
I would suggest that for the first stage of implementation, they function like rurals. In the future, I could see more elaborate ideas, but I am (with great difficulty) trying to keep myself focused.
I would suggest leaving cities and townslands as they are. They are already differentiated from the other regions in having walls, which leads to different tactics, which is the goal.