View Full Version : How to make battles more dynamic - IDEA
First: sorry for my english. Try to read my idea despite all language mistakes.
All we know that M:TW rules lead to one defensive strategy:
go to a map corner, sit and wait.
It's boring.
But ane litte thing can change it - flags. All good combat games (CM:BO, SM:Gettysburg) have flags.
And it's easy (for developers) to implement it in M:TW.
Rules:
Battlefield are created randomly, then it must be an algoritm to palce flag.
1. This is battlefield, with attakers on left side and defendres on right.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2. Let mark ( signs 'o')an area when flag should be placed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxooooox
xxxxxxxxxxooooox
xxxxxxxxxxooooox
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Its on the defenders side and it doesn't touch borders.
3. Then find the highest point on the marked area and place the flag.
4. weel , it's done.
5. Now we have assigned a value to the flag.
It must be good for small and large battles
Let say 30% of (attaking forces value+defending value).
6. After the battle you simply add the flag-value, to points of side who owns it at the end of battle.
I hope you have understand me http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Quote Originally posted by albi:
I hope you have understand me http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but no.
Not at all.
What's this flag stuff, and what is so important about ?
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif
Swoosh So
10-23-2002, 17:40
I think he means hold a certain area of the map, Like king of the hill, It was an option in mi but wasent that widley used once the patch came out
if i remember coorectly in Gettysburg you had to be in possession of a certain area, a flag area, to score some points.
maybe he wants that the defending army is forced to defend these flag areas.
Prodigal
10-23-2002, 17:48
He seems to be putting forward a new battle resolution. By taking flag areas you get points, at the end of the battle you see who has the most flags & that decides who won.
Idea is bad. Who needs virtual flags? Once when Your opponent sets himself on hill, more realistic is to try to flank him, so he looses his advantage. Do some thinking, not tricking.
Well, you understood - partly http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Flag is a symbol of key point (strategic point).
Who needs virtual flag?
-> arekb - how can you flank enemy if he is at the corner and there is only border behind him. You have no place to flank.
It's stupid when I cant outflank enemy, becouse he is at the map border (Charge !!! No wait ! Hold the horses ! It's a .... border !!! " http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif)
Flag is a point somewhere in the battlefield. When yoy will gain points by holding it, You will not hide on the borders.
It will aid more reality and strategic aspects to battles. It's no trick.
Haven't you ever played Combat Mission or Gettysburg ?!?
No I haven't.
However You are right with the border, I just don't like "flag" idea. Why? Because holding some specific piece of ground is good when you are fighting front line battles and it is needed for some tactic purposes. Not much such fight in medieval times (I would risk saying "zero" but who knows?)
TomThumbKOP
10-23-2002, 20:20
Another solution to the map edge problem is to get rid of the edge altogether. It would be _very_ difficult progammatically but not impossible. Just have a random map generator running all the time. The generator selects the center of mass for the units in combat then creates the map out to some distance x. Whenever the center of mass moves some distance delta, the map is recreated adding new parts in the direction moved and destroying parts in the opposite direction to make up the difference. This means that it would be possible to move off in one direction then come back and the map would be different(or the generator could remember what it had previously created but this would be a memory hog). The rules for retreating would need to be changed. And some thought would be given to how to avoid a defender who is faster than the attacker just running forever.
querulously
10-24-2002, 00:33
Call a flag your camp and you have a historical reason for how you can win even when your army has lost due to this reason.
Map edges could simply be either logically impassable (water,real mountain) or else poor for morale. Best would be if the best defensive terrain was far from the edge.
Battles should take place in limited access areas so the frontage is a consideration: at the moment you have too much operational control to change where the army fights. Larger maps are nice for publicity and marketing but they make little sense both in terms of realism and also in terms of fun.
Kraellin
10-24-2002, 00:56
albi,
i like your idea, as long as it's a game mode option and not the default. your statement that all m:tw rules lead to one defensive strategy isnt quite accurate and even if it were, it's still not a problem, per se. we do have the adjustable florins now, so simply give the attacker more florins if corner camping is a problem for you. and secondly, i've found in a good many cases, that it is often more advantageous for the 'defender' to attack. there are some very nice bonuses given for attacking rather than defending. maps can also be made to take away corner camping incentives. i'm quite surprised by how many of the default maps DO give corner camping incentives. simply make new maps.
the 'random map generator' idea actually doesnt work. i mean, yes, you could do it, but then wouldnt the corner camper simply then just move backwards and perhaps find an even better hill, newly generated, to camp on? sorry, doesnt work for me.
one possible solution, a sort of compromise to some of the earlier proposed red zone options, might be to allow the attacker to go into the red zone but not the defender. who's going to camp in an area where they can be flanked but not flank back? or, do the red zones such that you can move into them and as long as you are moving you dont get kicked out, but if you stop a unit in a red zone it immediately is auto-moved out. this would allow either side to manuever within the red zone but not camp there or deploy there. of course, a defender might abuse this a bit as well. he could simply keep moving his army within the red zone, so you might even have to make some more rules regarding this.
the problem with the flag idea is that you are never conquering the land itself, even though that's what's always said...'we conquered italy'. no, they didnt conquer italy, they conquered the italian army. so, posting a flag in the ground to defend now says, ok, you have to conquer the actual land instead of the army defending it. m:tw is about conquering armies. the flag idea is fine for a change of game play for fun, but it does impose some arbitrary restrictions on the defender which i dont much care for.
K.
------------------
http://home.domaindlx.com/takiyama/kraellin/icons-1.gif
querulously
10-24-2002, 02:07
If there were a number of areas which gave a morale boost or penalty to the owner this would make like interesting - try to hold a few, just one, just go for a kill etc
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.