Topic: battle system - some ideas

[Pijus_Magnificus]

I was writing this on a different thread but I think it deserves a new one.

I think it will be more realistic if the system is managed through percentages. The actual system "Legio I Principes shots and inflict 11 hits" seems a bit vague to me, with all due respect and acknowledging it must'n be easy to program.

Wouldn't it be better a system where 60% of Legio I Principes in open order - or 40% in close order - shoots at 40% of a formation in open order - or 80% in close order - and inflicts 20% casualties modified by terran and weapons and training and leadership and everyting you want in between. That can't be that difficult to simulate with a computer.

Also, I don’t know how you are going to implement the turn-based combat, but here is my idea.
First of all, you need a purpose for the battle. Apart from routing your enemy, a victory condition could be to seize the enemy camp. The enemy camp would be at the rear of both players’ troops with some minor terrain advantages. That would give a meaning to the battle, not just the mindless slaughter of soldiers; that could make the battles bloody good fun too, and add a different layer to the battle without making it more complicated. That would give meaning to a defender player that may find him/herself in a disadvantage - less troops, poorer quality, etc.
You issue your orders once, and then you see the battle develop. In that way battle managing is kept simple, with just one set of orders. That also allows the general to move at any time if necessary.

That’s all for today

[MicaByte]

Thanks for the comments.

As it is planned now, the player won't be seeing hits/loss messages (these are simply to make it easier for me to debug), but instead some graphical indication of results and the possibility of seeing whether they are winning or loosing (like in Shogun).

It would be no problem counting percentages, but reading that 0.5% casaulties were inflicted is not particularly inspiring. Yes - we're down in that scale of losses- keep in mind that the losses of an entire battle will typically not exceed 5-7%; most real losses will be taken when units rout.

Well the nice thing about a combined strategy/tactics game is that the purpose of your battle is a given. Perhaps you're deep within enemy territory, and desperately in need of a major victory to convince neighbouring cities to change sides. Or you might be simply looking to minimize losses to avoid a devastating blow to your forces. Either way, of course, you have an enemy army in front of you - whether or not you wanted the battle.

Seizing the enemy baggage (if I manage to implement it in a nice manner - will probably be "off-board") is a nice thing, but more because it is a huge morale blow to the army that suffers it (historically, some armies surrendered when their baggage trains got seized. Also quite useful if you're low on supplies. as you can seize the enemy's.

But the real object is to get the enemy army to retreat from the battlefield. Just slaughtering the enemy won't do - you have to convince his troops to leave the field of their own accord, before your own do. And - unless you want to loose the war (because armies are NOT easily replaced) - you should probably take thought to when it might be appropriate for your army to withdraw from the field voluntarily, rather than have them slaughtered by a victorious enemy.

The command system is a bit  like a tabletop game; more restricted though, as you are the General - not the Centurion.    So that means the important things remain deployment, determining when to launch the attack (if not immediate - time for a skirmish first), when and where to put in the reserves (if any), and when to withdraw (if needed).

No more right now, though - you should get the chance to find out how it functions soon enough, in any case (just as soon as I finish with the worst bugs).

[Nikanarchon]

My read of Skirmishers is that they were normally deployed primarily to give the battle-line time to deploy and arrange itself properly. If they could see of the enemy skirmishers and then harass the enemy battleline's deployment so much the better. Also if they could do something useful after the main line's engagement (like harass enemy flanks) all well and good. But after their initial covering of the battleline, their next major task was chasing a routed enemy or theoretically covering their own army's retreat (but normally if that occurred they would be first off the field)
Good quality skirmishers were surely the exception. Kretan archers, Rhodian and Baliaric slingers, perhaps some of the velites (those trained to work with cavalry).

[MicaByte]

I rather like Onasander's description of skirmishers; i.e., screen in front of army, useful for baiting enemy troops, and useful fighters to put into rough ground.

Currently, the skirmishers are simply thrown out in front of the army at startup, without any particular action. The player can then decide when he wants to recall skirmishers.

However, I am considering having a "pre-battle" skirmish phase, where the player chooses how many skirmishers to deploy as a screen. The game then evaluates an auto-skirmish battle, and the results are then applied to the game deployment plans;
i.e., units that are badly covered by skirmishers have
their troops suffering from casaulties, etc.

But this whole pre-battle phase needs to designed carefully, so that it does not become merely a stone-paper-scissors game.

[Markus Aurelius]

Strategy,

Just wanted to comment that I think your plans for the battle engine are excellent. No micro managing,  yet realistic options for battle.

Is the combat really going to be turn based? Doesn't that really slow down a usually quick and frantic sometimes unorganized event into something far to long?(ie turn based vs. realtime macro managed battle ala an advanced shogun style?)

we'll have to wait and see

[MicaByte]

Well I'm (mostly) trying to build the gameplay so as to put the player into the General's shoes:
The duty of the General is to ride by the ranks on horseback, show himself to those in danger, praise the brave, threaten the cowardly, encourage the lazy, fill up gaps, transpose a company if necessary, bring aid to the wearied, anticipate the crisis, the hour, and the outcome.
Onasander, The General xxxiii.6

Turns are pretty quick, at least when I'm playing them, and this is despite the interface being very cumbersome at present. Usually less than a minute/turn. Battles tend to last 30-40 turns at most (before one side or the other cracks). Hopefully, when the system (eventually) becomes 3D, it will be much easier to get a quick overview of the situation.

The plan is to have the battle game be continuous turn-based; i.e., the action on the screen never stops entirely (it just drops off in intensity when the player is taking his turn -simulating the lulls in fighting that current research suggests occured in ancient battles). There will also (hopefully) be an option to put a time-limit on turns, for those of us (myself included) who like a little time-pressure on our decisions.

So while the battles will not be STW frenzies, I do hope they'll be visually appealing and tense. Even if you spend most of the battle going back and forth along the battleline shouting "Fight for Roma, men, fight for Roma...<thud sound as javelin lodges in throat>"

[Philj]

I wonder if the main role of teh pre-battle skirmishing may be better reflected in fatigue (even if it's just nervous energy being expended from someone throwing rocks at you) than significant casualties (i.e., to battle line - skirmishers will probably hurt each other).  

[MicaByte]

Well, since casaulties are not a "big part" of the battles, the main benefit of getting your skirmisher in on the enemy is that of fatigue and cohesion loss.

As well (assuming the pre-battle system is implemented as designed), as being able to provoke the enemy into a battle.

[MicaByte]

Following the "Aftermath of battles" thread in the game design board, yet a third use of your skirmishers would be for the pursuit after a battle.