Background
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2012, 01:58:24 PM
 

Author Topic: On the battle system  (Read 1959 times)

charlesf

  • Quirite
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Charles Féaux de la Croix
On the battle system
« on: December 04, 2001, 04:47:32 AM »
Hail Imperator!

Thou hast once again evoked great expectations with your detailed summary. Clearly historical interest and wargame enthusiasm blend very nicely added your touch of realism and self-limitation. Should your battle engine be only half as good as your overall philosophy, then I'll know how I'll while away in the new year with this battle engine.

As said elsewhere, I am especially looking forward to the simultaneous combat. I am just wondering about the general's capability to order his army. I hope that battle phases will roughly parallel history and not too much unit shoving arising. Of course command will break up in the course of a battle, but I hope that this will entirely immobilize the front and only create little action in the later phases of a battle. Perhaps, sub-commanders should have more of their own mind (me particularly thinking of cavalry commanders) and act more and more independently (charging at their own will, if ill-disciplined and far-off the HQ.). I'd just like the general flow to be as close to history as possible. In my mind, the General shouldn't have too much control of the battle once really raging.

Further, what about disengagement? Will it be feasible? Could a General save the day by extracting a sizable force prior to an utter rout?

I see a great model in the making, but permit me to say so: Many ideas do resemble SPQR, if the command system does seem vastly superior (thanks to the computer). But then I guess you are taking thebest from the wargame legacy anyway.

I can harldly wait. This forum will be buzzing with bug reporting activity from then on (not too serious ones I hope).

Vale!

Carolvs Germanicvs (guess I have to adapt latinized name inthese surroundings.)  
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
Re: On the battle system
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2001, 01:08:05 AM »
Well, what do you mean by unit shoving? If you're thinking of redeployment, then mass-scale redeployments should be quite difficult to carry out, unless they have been carefully prepared (as in pre-designated prior to battle start). Smaller scale redeployments will not be too difficult, except that redeploying troops in the midst of combat is extremely difficult.

It is always possible to extract a force from the battlefield itself (in fact, it will usually be the smartest thing for the General to do, if the battle looks to be turning against you). But this phase only models the actual retreat from the battlefield and to the army's camp.

After the battle, the losing army will usually try to withdraw from the area, and whether this succeeds depends very much on the ratio and the state of the enemy's cavalry compared to one's own, what state the troop's one extracts are in, and the commander's abilities. Good commanders will tend to be able to retreat after a battle with their armies more or less intact; bad commander's will likely see their armies destroyed by desertion or their enemy's determined pursuit.

Though I've never played it (only heard of it), I think the game system more closely resembles Steve Jackson's "Rome at War" system rather than SPQR. But of course, inspiration is taken from all kinds of sources.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »