The Problem of Blobs

[Tom]

If we want to think carrots instead of sticks, we need to give advantages to small armies that are not intrinsic (i.e. mobility, etc.) - I really can't think of many that would not essentially be disadvantages to large armies (blobs). So basically, we're just calling it one way or the other.

I agree that disease is frustrating, which is why I've never added it to the game even though disease was probably the #1 reason for peasants to die as well as soldiers.

I don't think that troop presence works all too well. Players would just recruit small militia units to every region, or force courtiers, traders, etc. to have a unit.

No, we should think of actual battlefield advantages. There are two things that come to mind:

• Archers - the more enemy troops there are, the easier it is to hit somebody. If the enemy basically covers the entire field in front of you, it is pretty hard to not hit anyone by just firing into the crowd. So we could make archers more effective depending on the number of enemies they face. This would also promote mixed armies, and I don't see a downside. Because archer-heavy armies can easily be cut down using small cavalry forces deployed in skirmish formation (they still get a charge bonus, which should pretty much take care of any archers they charge into).
• Maneuverability - not really easy to implement on our 1D battlefield, but ignoring the implementation details, a small army attacking a large army would pretty much have the advantage of being able to choose where to hit, because a front line several thousand man strong is pretty much immobile, you can't switch units around, etc. - the gameplay effect could be that a considerably (less than half) army would automatically attack the weakest units of the larger army, forcing them into melee first. Again, not sure if this can even be coded in our current battle system, but a thought.

[Zakilevo]

I like the first one. The second one won't work very well with the current battle system as you said. How about make it easier for units to follow the marshal settings when it is a small army? I am not 100% sure how marshal settings work but not everyone follows the marshal setting right?

[Chenier]

I don't think that troop presence works all too well. Players would just recruit small militia units to every region, or force courtiers, traders, etc. to have a unit.

Didn't I say mobile troops? If I didn't, I meant to. Inciting massive deployment of militia is definitely not a good thing.

No, we should think of actual battlefield advantages. There are two things that come to mind:

• Archers - the more enemy troops there are, the easier it is to hit somebody. If the enemy basically covers the entire field in front of you, it is pretty hard to not hit anyone by just firing into the crowd. So we could make archers more effective depending on the number of enemies they face. This would also promote mixed armies, and I don't see a downside. Because archer-heavy armies can easily be cut down using small cavalry forces deployed in skirmish formation (they still get a charge bonus, which should pretty much take care of any archers they charge into).
• Maneuverability - not really easy to implement on our 1D battlefield, but ignoring the implementation details, a small army attacking a large army would pretty much have the advantage of being able to choose where to hit, because a front line several thousand man strong is pretty much immobile, you can't switch units around, etc. - the gameplay effect could be that a considerably (less than half) army would automatically attack the weakest units of the larger army, forcing them into melee first. Again, not sure if this can even be coded in our current battle system, but a thought.

Cavalry in skirmish!? Even an army with a very heavy archer component would laugh at this if they get their box infantry to soak in the charge.

About maneuverability, I tend to disagree. A larger army can much more easily cut off, split, or surround a smaller army. The larger army can also much more easily deploy the weaker units to inaccessible places if such was their desire. And finally, spotting a unit's morale and training on the field, before they fight, would be next to impossible, and these are critical in determining a unit's strength. If you use the argument of maneuvrability (which I find flawed), it should at least target the least equipped, not the weakest. In either case, though, this just means that the nobles who can't afford better units will always have to recruit again and again, remaining poor. Casualties will always be greater for the common knights than the lords and other elite. I don't think this is a consequence that is desirable.

I'm not against the change to archers (perhaps add a chance to friendly/fire that scales according to the proportion of friendly to hostile troops on the front line?), but I don't see how it would change anything regarding to blob armies. All it would do is incite larger armies to rely on archers less, and more on infantry and cavalry.

Which just brings us back to the fundamental question: are blob armies so bad that we can't just accept that they are a necessary evil resulting from the game being based on 12 hour turns and that they have been the norm since probably always? Because it's not like splitting up the army is never good. It's just usually not as good.

[egamma]

• Archers - the more enemy troops there are, the easier it is to hit somebody. If the enemy basically covers the entire field in front of you, it is pretty hard to not hit anyone by just firing into the crowd. So we could make archers more effective depending on the number of enemies they face. This would also promote mixed armies, and I don't see a downside. Because archer-heavy armies can easily be cut down using small cavalry forces deployed in skirmish formation (they still get a charge bonus, which should pretty much take care of any archers they charge into).
• Maneuverability - not really easy to implement on our 1D battlefield, but ignoring the implementation details, a small army attacking a large army would pretty much have the advantage of being able to choose where to hit, because a front line several thousand man strong is pretty much immobile, you can't switch units around, etc. - the gameplay effect could be that a considerably (less than half) army would automatically attack the weakest units of the larger army, forcing them into melee first. Again, not sure if this can even be coded in our current battle system, but a thought.

I very much like the archer idea.

As for the 1D battlefield, I think the easiest way to fix it would be to add "left/center/right" as a deployment option, and to start with, run it as 3 separate battles--maybe with the remains of the 3 battles fighting one at the end so that there's one definitive winner instead of a split decision.

[pcw27]

Two new ideas:

First, Ad an overkill system for looting. If the numbers are ajusted right the system could make smaller armies a more effective looting strategy.

Logically there's only so much you can loot from a region regardless of how many men you have doing the looting. The system as far as I can tell already bases looting success on available food, tax gold, population ect. The system is there, the numbers just need to be tweaked so a smaller force can loot more effectively.

How small a force it takes should vary based on the type of looting being done. Burning food and looting tax gold for example shouldn't take many troops at all. I could see as few as 100 men easily securing the granaries and burning them down. Same goes for the tax office. Once you smash in the locks and kill the guards the gold is yours for the taking.

Second

Either make digging in more effective, or allow the building of palisades in rural regions. A strong border defense means an attacking army is better off coming in groups. If a blob army meets an equal strength blob army at a fortified border they're likely to lose the battle and have to go home. If they break up into several groups they can enter through several regions. The enemy blob might get one of their smaller armies, but the rest have broken through and can now regroup and hold the fortifications themselves.

This is also a better representation of how fortifications would be organized in medieval countries.

[GoldPanda]

I don't think that troop presence works all too well. Players would just recruit small militia units to every region, or force courtiers, traders, etc. to have a unit.

I wasn't thinking of militia troops either. The peasantry wouldn't be impressed by militia, because the militia-men are their neighbors, not exotic visitors from other regions, clad in shining armor and bright plumage. The militia would also be a drain on the local economy.

And what's wrong with forcing Courtiers and Traders to recruit units? That's not covered by IR, and I don't see anything abusive about making nobles field troops. Just because a noble is a Courtier does not mean that he's not from the military caste. The nobility are "those who fight" after all.

Edit: Very few realms would have enough Courtiers/Traders to provide significant "troop coverage" by themselves.