Messages

16

Helpline / Re: Box / Line / Wedge / Skirmish

« on: August 20, 2011, 01:01:47 AM »

This is battlemaster. the tactics are not that complex to begin with. if you want a straight forward game where everything gets beaten by something, play rock paper scissors.

I don't want a straight-forward game where everything gets beaten by something, but I do want a game that makes sense, that I understand, and gives some level of variety.

Thanks for your useful explanation, it's made the situation make a lot more sense to me, which helps me with that.  Sadly I don't own any books about medieval warfare, so the majority of the historical-war-based ones I've read are set after 1700 - which is not always a lot of help for Battlemaster!

So from what I can tell, the ways to defeat cavalry, and stop them being the massive force they otherwise are, are:
- fight them when you have walls
- make use of the battlemaster rows to force them to waste their charge on a small line of troops

The only thing I'm still not sure about is whether there is any formation I can use to help my infantry or archers perform better or worse against cavalry (either in attack or defence).  Most of the talk so far has been about defending by using mutliple units in particular waves etc, rather than talking about the formations.  Am I right in thinking that:
- Cavalry pretty much always benefit from being in a wedge
- Defending against cavalry it doesn't really matter what formation you use because you're going to die unless you can hide behind a wall or someone else's troops.

17

Helpline / Re: Where does the sun set?

« on: August 19, 2011, 05:07:37 PM »

It does get a little more confusing in the Morek area of Dwilight, though (Huanghai, Linhai, Zhongyuan, Caiyun, Cailyn, Shomrak, Taishan, Bohai, Donghaiwei), where the regions have very Eastern sounding names, that make me think far more of China than of France.  Are those regions just as European as the rest?

18

Helpline / Re: Where does the sun set?

« on: August 19, 2011, 01:07:27 PM »

I am no authority on the matter, but my opinion is simple: collective world-building.

So the question would not be "are there rabbits in Battle Master", but more "would you like them to be rabbits?"

I think actually the question would be "would I like them to be rabbits and would anyone else mind if they were rabbits?"

Because I might want to have some llamas to ride, and some kangaroos to hunt.  But other players might find that daft and annoying and not introduce them.


I guess common sense can generaly prevail - I'll just stick to usually using European stuff with the odd fantasy whatsit, but avoid tropical exotic earth thingies.

19

Helpline / Re: Box / Line / Wedge / Skirmish

« on: August 19, 2011, 01:01:42 PM »

Yep, the number of troops doesn't include the noble.

So my 3 troops were accompanied by my character, so in fact they had four men - just enough for a 2x2 column

Similarly, I assume cohesion must be cohesion with the noble, since he's in addition to the number of troops.

20

Helpline / Re: Where does the sun set?

« on: August 19, 2011, 12:04:44 AM »

At the time, I was in the middle of writing a roleplay about my character looking to the west, just after sunset.  I was therefore considering whether it would have been correct for him to have seen silhouettes of things, since they'd have had the sun behind them.

Then I remembered the fact that this isn't Earth, and places like Dwilight have their bloodstars and all sorts, of non-earth constellations, and had a sudden wondering whether the sun setting in the west was as ridiculous in Battlemaster as wanting to explore the north pole or board a boat heading for the West Indies.

I always have the same worry about animals... does battlemaster have rabbits?  Sheep?  Deer?  Lions?  Kangaroos?  Polar bears?  Dinosaurs?  Dragons?  Unicorns?  Which animals are appropriate to copy from Earth and put into Battlemaster, and which are not?  (First person to mention Atamaran badgers buys us all a round of drinks in apology!)

Similarly other nature - are trees in Battlemaster Oak, Ash, Pine, Elm and Beech?  Or are they Eucalyptus, Mahogony, Teak?  Or battlemaster-unique - the sturdy Lub tree, the tall and leafy Yerth, and the Jukluk with its poisonous berries and brittle bark?

I'm not really into the long, descriptive, narrative roleplays, but even with my rather less artistic and atmospheric stuff, I do sometimes want to refer to 'some animal' frightening a horse, or 'some tree' being climbed to get away from 'some animal' that was frightening my character.  And I always struggle a bit to know which ones to use.  Any precedent for any of these?

21

Helpline / Where does the sun set?

« on: August 18, 2011, 08:28:36 PM »

I'm used to the sun setting in the west and rising in the east.

Is that true in the lands of Battlemaster (Atamara specifically on this occasion)?  Or does the Battlemaster world not mimic Earth in that respect?

22

Development / Re: Retention Revisited

« on: August 18, 2011, 08:05:52 PM »

Is there nobody who plays battlemaster for the battles anymore?

Accepting that it depends which realm you start in, because last time I started the game, my first character was on the front line within five days and fighting a battle every other day for the next few weeks, but this time...

- in 37 days, my first character has had 5 battles, 2 of them were only against peasants, one was only against undead and one he created for himself only by wandering off two regions into enemy land and getting mashed up; only one was a 'proper' battle.
- in 23 days (12.5 days taking into account he's in the Colonies), my second character has had 1 battle, which was an easy win against undead

So if we're still talking about engaging new players quickly, then there's certainly no guarantee that battles will be available to do that.

23

Helpline / Re: Box / Line / Wedge / Skirmish

« on: August 18, 2011, 07:53:53 PM »

Ok, so you've partly persuaded me that horses really should be an unstoppable force (though I'll still be interested to hear a reply to fodder's suggestion about a wall of shields, so I'm not yet 100% convinced, and I've seen horses at the showjumping refuse running over/through/whatever a hedge or a gate or a pond - none of which were firing at it with muskets).

I'm still somewhat unsure that their higher cost is proportional to their higher power, but they do at least have the inability to attack walls, so that's something, certainly.  And the fact that all the gamers don't run off and recruit cavalry and nothing else suggests it can't be too overpowered overall.


The thing that still bugs me though is the CS values.

First off, the horses should, I think, have a higher CS value.  Granted, if they're up against walls, then they're useless, and their CS could be assumed to be 0, or close to 0, if against walls.  But that's fine, you just work out if the battle has walls, and if it does, you replace whatever CS value they have with the number 0.

And so the CS should be representative of their power in the fields 9because it is not possible to look at the CS, guess what percentage-of-battles-against-walls were used in their calculation, divide by that percentage and come up with a 'fields' CS value for them).  I'll concede that one battle is not a good sample, so I'll see if I have more in future that are appropriate to consider for this topic.  But based on that one sample, the CS of the cavalry should probably have been double what it actually was.


And then the peasants.  Oh joy!  I have another battle with peasants on which I can now report.  And it's quite a good one for this discussion, though I did forget to put my infantry back to line, but never mind:


Battle:
Attackers: 3 Infantry (box, CS 64)
Defenders: 18 Angry Peasants (line, CS 60)

So here we have a battle between almost equal forces.  60 vs 64.

The 60 Angry Peasants are in line, and the Infantry are in Box.  So the Angry Peasants should do a little more damage than the Infantry.  And the Infantry should be able to absorb a little more damage without dying than the Angry Peasants.  So that should still end up pretty equal.

And the Infantry w/a is 50%/49%, which are very equal, so I'd not expect a particularly strong or weak performance in either attack or defence from them.

Round One
18 Angry Peasants score 5 hits (3 after overkill)
3 Infantry score 25 hits
One peasant dies.

Round Two
17 Angry Peasants score 4 hits (3 after overkill)
3 Infantry score 26 hits
One peasant dies.

Round Three
16 Angry Peasants score 4 hits (3 after overkill)
3 Infantry score 36 hits
Two peasants die.

Round Four
14 Angry Peasants score 3 hits
3 Infantry score 29 hits
One peasant dies, and the remaining peasants retreat.

So... 64 CS vs 60 CS.

The 64 CS do between 25 and 36 hits each round.
The 60 CS do between 4 and 5 hits each round.

And it's not as if the 60 CS have something like 5%/95% weapons/armour, firstly because they didn't manage to withstand the hits on them that well, and secondly because I bet that peasants would be given a flat 50%/50% split by the game code.

So as far as I can see, and I'm now up to 2 sample battles, the CS value of peasants is greatly overstated.  They should have been about 9 CS, not 60 CS.

24

Helpline / Re: Box / Line / Wedge / Skirmish

« on: August 18, 2011, 12:37:42 PM »

Because battletactics have always been the same?

Well, there I have no idea really - I'm not a historian

I'm interested to know, then, what medieval armies did do against cavalry if they met them in the field.  Did they just die horribly?  Did they have no defence tactic?

If so, why weren't armies of horses conquering the world back then?

25

Helpline / Re: Box / Line / Wedge / Skirmish

« on: August 18, 2011, 12:20:05 PM »

why is napoleanic even relevant? ain't no guns at all in this era.

That's true, but since in this situation they just put bayonets on the end and used the guns as pointy swords (ie not firing them), it's not as irrelevant as it first appears.

26

Development / Re: Retention Revisited

« on: August 18, 2011, 10:11:01 AM »

I've certainly had a good few RPs from you, though I don't remember one in the first day I started (but that may just be my memory failing!).  I do remember being welcomed to the army by Agiri when I joined that, which is something very similar and probably equally important

27

Development / Re: Retention Revisited

« on: August 18, 2011, 01:18:59 AM »

Morning star has a good point. You want to feel as you're getting somewhere. BM has a large spectrum of getting somewhere, and you can choose yourself what to focus on, kind of like real life. That is the coolest bit. You can chase fame if you want, family fortune, expansion for your realm, getting a lordship, getting a specific council position (often ruler), plan to create your own realm, dwelve into religion and make that region the dominant one, create your own religion, right a wrong by revenge (either against a realm or another character) and so on. Then you spice up the main objective with smaller semi-plans and great RP + all the unexpected stuff that you can react to.

Yep, agreed, having some feeling of progression, so that after a certain amount of time, you feel it was worth the effort.

But how long-term are all those goals that came to mind?

- Aiming for fame can be ok, but it is slow for people to get any at first (I've been back over a month now, and still on 0 fame).  And at higher levels particularly, actively aiming for more fame usually means powergaming to contrive any excuse to get your characters to do whatever it is they need to do for their next fame point.
- Family fortune can be ok, but it's not something new players can do much with early on.  You wealth drops with each new character, and takes ages to replenish.  And so many new nobles are offered a miserable oath offer, and take it for want of anything better, that they don't have much to put away.  Last time I played, it was a year before I had enough spare gold to seriously consider adding to my family wealth.
- Expansion for your realm you can't do as a new player.  After all, it's not really your realm to expand, you're merely a knight serving a lord.
- Getting a lordship is a common goal for new players.  But it can take months.  Last time it took me over a year with three characters before any of them got a lordship.  This time round, it's been over a month and even when my character was one of only two candidates in an election, and mine was the one from the right region, duchy, and with a claim, he didn't get it.  I imagine it may still be months before any of my characters find themselves with a position, just like last time.
- Getting a specific council position is even longer-term.  Last time, it took me over a year before one of my characters became Banker of Falasan.  And that was the only council position any of them got in the two years I played.
- Creating your own realm I don't think is possible unless you're a Duke and you split off to form your own realm.  And becoming a Duke seems even more unlikely than becoming a council member - the cities so infrequently change hands.
- Delve into religion is not possible as a new player because you can't be a priest until you have enough honour/time etc.  After a month playing, none of my characters can yet be priests.
- Creating your own religion is even less likely.  I believe you have to have a lordship position and/or be a priest to do that?  Certainly a new simple knight can't expect to be able to do that for months.
- Revenge sounds delightful, but you can't do that as a newbie either.  You can't revenge on them by stabbing them because you can't be an infiltrator without months of gaining honour and prestige.  You can't duel them because your swordmanship takes months to develop to a high enough level.  You can't revenge on a realm because you have no power in your own to gain support you'd need.

Some you missed out that is just about possible to do as a newbie, but only if others play along, which they often don't:
- Creating some roleplays that involve the realm and are memorable and engaging, and people say that they like
- Getting medals, which is often based on doing good roleplays and/or writing lots of good letters to people in the realm

In short - I agree that we mostly like to have our own personal goals.  My concern is that every one that you mentioned take months, probably years in the game to achieve.  There are precious few things you can achieve as a new player with a simple knight with 10 honour, 1 prestige, and an oath giving 25 gold per week.  And I think the frustration at playing every day for months and months and having such a minimal feeling of progression must be part of the reason we're losing players after three months or so.

Once the novelty wears off, and you realise you've gone nowhere in three months, and there's no particular indication you'll go anywhere in the next three months either, you might just sack it off as a bad game and go elsewhere.

28

Helpline / Re: Box / Line / Wedge / Skirmish

« on: August 17, 2011, 11:43:41 PM »

Cavalry in a siege battle are overpriced pincushions more often than not, which balances it out, and explains why their CS equivalence seems off.  You essentially have to average the extra usefulness in the field vs the lack of usefulness in sieges.

I see what you mean, but I would argue that the CS should be determined based on their performance in the field (not least because that's where the vast majority of battles happen).  Then, if you go against a wall, you can make note of the fact that cavalry won't do much for you.  Taking some sort of average (which would have to assume a percentage of how many battles you had against walls compared to not against walls), is a bit dodgy I think.

I think if the CS was a bit higher for cavalry, to take into account their charge, then the infantry would be expected to lose, as they did.  And an infantry of matching higher CS value would be able to withstand enough of the charge to fight back afterwards and make a battle of it.

It's a good point about archers as well, of course.  But I bet archers die even quicker when hit by the charge when it arrives


Would still be interesting if anyone does know what formations are good for cavalry to use (or is it just, boringly, always use Wedge and Rearguard?).  And would be interesting if anyone does know what formations are good against them (clearly not Box!) if indeed there is any formation that is effective against cavalry as it sounds to me as if cavalry just stampede over any formation thrown at them.

29

Helpline / Re: Box / Line / Wedge / Skirmish

« on: August 17, 2011, 10:59:39 PM »

Hmm, some useful points...

Because the peasants have a low cohesion rating. They're fumbling around for their weapons, wondering if their cow is still in its pen, thinking about their wife/kids. They might have big weapons, but if they can't use them then they're going to do very little damage.

That's true. |  But that's describing their training.  Which is also low.

Yes, the peasants did do low damage. What did you expect? They're unarmored, and use flails and pitchforks at best.

Because the horses managed to trample straight over your guys, scare them a little and wound them greatly in the process.

That the cavalry deals a lot of damage is perfectly understandable as well. Simply throwing dead horses with the same velocity into a crowd would kill a lot of people. On top of that, the infantrymen get cramped together, where the cavalerists can still attack from horseback - with more space to swing their weapons.

Many very similar points, all saying that the peasants fought less well because they had low stats (be that cohesion, training, morale, whatever).  Or the horses fought better because they're big and strong and horselike.

But as Chernier's just posted, that's all already taken into account (or should be) in calculating CS.  That's why 23 men (peasants) have only 75CS, whereas just 16 men (army) have 219CS.  You can't then go double-counting it, and saying that they should then fight even less well.

Similarly, if it really is the case that cavalry charge can pretty much break through any formation I throw at them, then their CS should be considerably higher.  They have the ability to wipe two thirds of my unit out in one go, while I don't so much as wound one of them, yet they have a lower CS.  This doesn't make sense.

As far as I can tell from my experience, the peasants should have been listed as having about 15CS.  And the horses probably more like 350CS.  That would more accurately have reflected the fact that even with a good formation, the peasants were useless (apart from as fodder), and the horses were really rather strong.  Showing it as 375 CS vs 219 CS would probably have been a fairer reflection of the outcome.

1. Against walls, they are completely and utterly useless.
2. They deal a lot of damage, but they also die fast.
3. They're more expensive to recruit than infantry.
4. Their centers are more expensive to build than infantry.
5. A given noble can command a lot fewer cavalry than infantry.
6. Did I mention they're useless against walls? 'Cause that's pretty darn important.

1. Fair point, although most battles happen in the rural regions, I find.
2. These didn't die at all.  They'd destroyed my troops so fast that they could barely fight back to case any damage anyway.  And they do their massive charge before they get hit by infantry at all.
3. No, they're more expensive per person.  But since 4 cavalry can decimate 16 infantry, they can be four times the price and still be better value.
4. OK, that's something at least, didn't know that.
5. Which doesn't matter because they do much more damage than infantry, so you don't need to command as many of them.
6. Yes, you did.

And I take it that the answer to "what formation helps infantry defend against cavalry" is "none - just run away or die"?

One thing that is important to realize, and something that I was confused about initially as well, is that when you put your men in box formation, it is not equivalent to a cavalry square.

As someone else already stated, a traditional cavalry square without pikes is damn near useless.

Oh!

Well then, that does start to explain things.  I thought box was like a cavalry square - that is that you have men in a tight box shape, facing outwards on all sides with swords pointing out at each side.  Then when a horse runs towards it, it just stops (like a refusal at the showjumping) and/or ends up in the face of the box, impaled on swords.

But I question them being useless without pikes.  You mentioned their use in Napoleonic wars - I don't think they had pikes then, they just held their bayonets out on the end of their muskets, didn't they?  After all, I'm sure it was (with difficulty) possible to keep the square intact while advancing or retreating, and you'd not have been able to move while in a square if you had pikes fixed in the ground - nor would soldiers have carried around both a gun and a pike.

The cavalry may also have just charged straight through the infantry and then fought them from back to front (less likely game-mechanic wise, but RP wise makes sense)

It didn't make any sense when I thought they were in a cavalry square.  Because there's not really a 'back'.
But it does make sense when understood to be a column, not a square.

I'm not a student of medieval or military history, but I believe that getting into a box against cavalry is really only effective if you've got pikes.

Yet Anaris still seems to think, like me, that a box is a cavalry square, because you certainly wouldn't pair pikes with a column.


So it sounds as if the reason the box formation was so lousy is that it was (probably) really a column formation (all facing fowards) not a cavalry square formation (facing in all four directions) as I'd thought.  But even so, there really wasn't any formation the infantry could have picked that would have made them more effective against horses, because a cavalry charge is unstoppable.  And so the CS value for the horses is really too low because it ignores the damage of their charge.  Then the CS for the peasants is too high because they massively underperform compared to their CS.  And the infantry should only ever try to attack cavalry when they greatly outnumber them in CS terms, or when they're behind a wall.

You live and learn.   

30

Helpline / Re: Box / Line / Wedge / Skirmish

« on: August 17, 2011, 08:47:38 PM »

Don't know about medieval times specifically, but I'm sure more recently when people went fighting with muskets, they'd stick a bayonet on the end and then form into a box.

I wouldn't have thought that a gun with a knife on the end is an awful lot longer than a sword, it is?  Presumably my troops aren't fighting with pocket daggers?

---

And the other question would then be - if box doesn't defend against cavalry, then what does?  And if nothing does, then why does anyone recruit anything other than cavalry, other than if the recruitment centres have run out, given 4 of them with two-thirds of the CS can mow down and destroy 16 infantry without a single casualty?  Where's their weakness?