The Problem of Blobs

[Tom]

I also think that option #1 is the best, most realistic and most promising idea to eliminate blob armies.

Now the tricky part is implementing it so that players don't feel it is a punishment. I would totally love to have a simulation of diseases and epidemics in the game, it would be so much fun to code and watch - but it would be no fun to play. That's why it's not there.

[Zakilevo]

I'll toy with numbers a bit, but these are not necessarily realistic.

Loot two regions simultaneously -> -1 realm wide drop in morale
Do it in the following turn as well -> -2 realm wide drop in morale
Third turn -> -3 morale drop etc.

If you loot three regions, it could be -2 realm wide drop the first turn
Second turn would give -4 drop if you keep looting them
Third turn -6 drop

And if you are looting four regions at the same time, begin with -3 drop, and then -6, -9 and so on.

That sounds extreme. It will make things too easy for big realms with big multiple armies to crush small realms.

[Tom]

Regarding the looting, I see an opportunity there to give realms an incentive for several small duchies - by summing up on the duchy level first and then on the realm level.

So basically:

LootEffect = MyRegion + Sum(MyDuchy) + Sum(MyRealm)

This would count the region itself 3 times and regions within the same duchy twice.

[Zakilevo]

Regarding the looting, I see an opportunity there to give realms an incentive for several small duchies - by summing up on the duchy level first and then on the realm level.

So basically:

LootEffect = MyRegion + Sum(MyDuchy) + Sum(MyRealm)

This would count the region itself 3 times and regions within the same duchy twice.

I actually like this idea. We have too many supersized duchies at the moment. Not too many realms are using a townsland region to create a duchy at the moment.

[GoldPanda]

Make the "disease penalty" as severe as the "starvation penalty", and make them NOT stack. That way, the penalty is annoying but tolerable for a few days, and your army only start taking significant damage if you stay blobbed up for many days, and the penalty is somewhat mitigated by healers.

I don't hear many complaints about the starvation penalty, mostly because, I believe, the game clearly communicates what's happening and why it happened.

[Geronus]

I don't hear many complaints about the starvation penalty, mostly because, I believe, the game clearly communicates what's happening and why it happened.

Which is the key here I think. It needs to be clear what is happening so that players can actively mitigate it.

[De-Legro]

Which is the key here I think. It needs to be clear what is happening so that players can actively mitigate it.

So when you get your turn update on unit status something along the lines of

"Due to the size of the military camp many of your men are starting to suffer from lack of access to fresh water and proper sanitary infrastructure. X men are now wounded"

Things to think about, given time it is easily possible to build a camp to minimise such a problem, the Romans are a great example of how quickly a camp could be put together that provided decent levels of sanitation. Should we provide something to help reduce the effect, something like the dig in action? Second you should be able to muster a large force for a short time without worrying about this, so if it was to be implemented maybe have a few turns before illness is a concern.

In the end though won't people just split the force into adjacent regions to the attack destination then all move as one to the target, have the battle then split up again? I guess if the defending force is also trying to mitigate the effect by rallying in adjacent regions we might get a interesting dynamic of jockeying and conflict over rally points Or perhaps armies will just constantly move between to regions to prevent the problem until they are ready to attack.

[Duvaille]

That sounds extreme. It will make things too easy for big realms with big multiple armies to crush small realms.

Well, the numbers are mock numbers meant to illustrate a point. The severity of the situation could increase more gradually too, of course. But the point remains that the longer the situation persists, I think the increases in morale drops should get worse too. Even something like doubling the effect if you keep looting in four consecutive days without interruption.

LootEffect = MyRegion + Sum(MyDuchy) + Sum(MyRealm)

This would count the region itself 3 times and regions within the same duchy twice.

How about increasing the effect (moral drop= gradually over time if looting persists? Or do it slightly differently, that if looting persists and is not dealt with, loyalty begins to fall quicker and quicker, where sporadic lootings mainly hurt the morale alone. It's like the peasants first think "hey, this sucks!" and then "why  there's nothing done about this?"

[Tom]

That's kind of the idea. I think it would work nicely with the current LC. For example, right now on BT the sum I outlined above would sum up to (without naming the regions):

Region A: 4+4+8 = 16
Region B: 3+8+13 = 24
Region C: 3+13+13 = 29

A has two regions in the realm being looted, both in different duchies
B has 4 regions being looted one other being in the same duchy
C has 4 regions being looted, all in the same duchy

And I think BT provides a good worst-case scenario for looting of many regions right now. Divide by some number, substract a small "tolerance" value and we're there. Say, divide by 3 for morale, 4 for independence and 5 for loyalty and substract 2 as a tolerance and you end up with:

A: -3 / +2 / -1
B: -6 / +3 / -3
C: -8 / +5 / -4


Now for other islands, looting one region to the ground seems to be the more common strategy. There are far fewer regions on other islands being looted, but the individual LC values are higher, much higher. We might want to sum up sqrt() values instead.

[Peri]

Maybe I am the only one in here, but I do not see the current system to be so dramatically bad.

Let's be straight: if in a war one side overwhelms the other in term of total cs, there is little one can do to turn the tide. And anyway I do not think what is being discussed here points in the direction of giving a chance to smaller realms or generically the weaker side of a war to increase their chance of survival, is that right?

In the opposite scenario where both sides field a similar or equal cs, and are led by people who know what they are doing, I think the game already allows for some non-trivial manoeuvres which in general I believe yield way better results than just amassing nobles and throw them at the other blob.

In short: I fail to see the motivation for this discussion. Spreading out to loot is already very effective. Especially when one aims for the right regions with the right units.

[De-Legro]

Maybe I am the only one in here, but I do not see the current system to be so dramatically bad.

Let's be straight: if in a war one side overwhelms the other in term of total cs, there is little one can do to turn the tide. And anyway I do not think what is being discussed here points in the direction of giving a chance to smaller realms or generically the weaker side of a war to increase their chance of survival, is that right?

In the opposite scenario where both sides field a similar or equal cs, and are led by people who know what they are doing, I think the game already allows for some non-trivial manoeuvres which in general I believe yield way better results than just amassing nobles and throw them at the other blob.

In short: I fail to see the motivation for this discussion. Spreading out to loot is already very effective. Especially when one aims for the right regions with the right units.

In a battle superior numbers/training/skill will generally prevail, though it is no certainty. In a war numbers are a smaller part of the big picture. It shouldn't be a case that you need similar CS to be competitive, strategy should play a much bigger part then it currently does.

Larger force + better/equal leadership should generally lead to a win. Right now the larger force doesn't need to be particularly well led, just not totally incompetent.

[Tom]

Let's be straight: if in a war one side overwhelms the other in term of total cs, there is little one can do to turn the tide.

The problem is that right now wars are not one by the realm with the higher total CS, but by the realm that can bring more CS to the battlefield of the day. Which, while realistic, leads to the issue that hyperactivity is rewarded and casual play punished.

[Chenier]

So, if it is a problem that people tend to make huge blobs of units and crash them at the enemy, something should be done about it. Everything in the game seems to scale so that it is always better to split a huge blob into smaller ones - like it is more efficient to have many estates than a single large one, or many different units instead of one huge. But the question then is essentially how to change this so that the same is true on an army level.

Sure, there are methods already there, like crowded roads. But that is a hindrance, not an encouragement. Would we perhaps benefit from such encouragements, like giving more power to raiding parties somehow? What if it somehow hurt more to have enemy troops present on a number of regions? If you only march your troops in one or two enemy regions, no problem, the population can take that. But what if there were increased morale penalties throughout the realm if many regions were simultaneously under attack? All you need then is a small force to cross the border and spread around the place, so you only need a little bit stronger force to counter it, but then.. and so it becomes a game of guessing what the other will do.

This proposal probably has its problems and it may not be a perfect one, but perhaps we could think of more ways how it would actually be beneficial to split the forces most of the time. When conquering a city, you might still want to blob it and that would perhaps be fine, but for the rest of the time it could be different.

It's a lot because of player culture. As general, on BT, I've often divided our forces to great success.

All depends on what you want to do, though, where you are fighting and how strong the enemy is. Blobs are necessary when you must defeat a blob army, however, or take on fortified positions.

In a battle superior numbers/training/skill will generally prevail, though it is no certainty. In a war numbers are a smaller part of the big picture. It shouldn't be a case that you need similar CS to be competitive, strategy should play a much bigger part then it currently does.

Larger force + better/equal leadership should generally lead to a win. Right now the larger force doesn't need to be particularly well led, just not totally incompetent.

You confuse army size with army strength. If an army has a lot of CS, it doesn't mean that it is large (though it usually is), but rather that it is very strong. A small army with more CS than a large army should, theoretically, win over the larger one.

[Chenier]

Yes, then why is most looting performed by blobbed up armies? If looting is that destructive, then the best possible strategy is to spread out your army to loot all the regions at once. If your enemy takes its whole army in a blob, they'll defeat all your tiny armies one after another, but their realm will be dead before they manage to do it.

Why don't we see this happen?

Because most generals are pussies that don't want to hurt the peasants' feelings.

I've done this as general of Enweil. Split up forces to loot multiple region, retreating any fragment that gets targeted to keep the enemies on the run. It was very effective. Much more than a blob army where 90% of the nobles do nothing every turn after the second looting attempt stirs peasants mobs.

Or because the general or the troops he commands are too lazy to be able to react quickly and make the tactic effective. Or because they aren't strong enough and doing so means the enemy could just ignore your small forces and rolfstomp your capital.

[De-Legro]

It's a lot because of player culture. As general, on BT, I've often divided our forces to great success.

All depends on what you want to do, though, where you are fighting and how strong the enemy is. Blobs are necessary when you must defeat a blob army, however, or take on fortified positions.


You confuse army size with army strength. If an army has a lot of CS, it doesn't mean that it is large (though it usually is), but rather that it is very strong. A small army with more CS than a large army should, theoretically, win over the larger one.

No, larger better equipped and even better trained forces have been defeated by smaller armies.  I was making a statement about real life, where the CS analogy doesn't really apply. In a battle in BM higher CS will almost always win (excepting fortifications and terrible line setting failures). Given the current battle system its not going to be practical to implement a way for smaller CS forces to have much chance in a battle. But the changes proposed are about making a smaller CS force have a better chance of winning the war by providing ways to force the enemy to split their larger forces.