Defeated generals

[Nowake]

I want to adress an older problem, of both Shogy and Medieval. The definition of battle and defeat; while in the past two games this was improbable to be solved, now I think it could be done quite easily.


There are situation in your campaigns when you enter the battle, but your enemy's position is too strong and you think, after inspecting his advantages or some initial skirmishing, that it would be better to withdraw and fight another day. But you can't do that without registering a defeat, a thing very unrealistic and frustrating.

My sugestion is simple:

1) if forces have not been engaged at all, there is no posibility of you being defeated

2) if your forces have been engaged, and you decide to withdraw after failing to penetrate enemy positions, you'll not be granted a defeat if your casualties are not higher than 10%

3) if your forces have been engaged, and you've lost about 20% of your men, and you decide to retreat, you'll not be granted a defeat if your casualties are smaller than his.


Really, it would make it all less frustrating, you'd have the possibility to harras the enemy much more effective and still have your general not loose prestige. Maybe he could gain a vice like Cuntuator (sp?) but not a defeat. In real history neither of these situations would have been considered defeats.

[hundurinn]

Thats a great idea. It shouldn't be that hard to implent it to the game.

[Dead Moroz]

I think the first suggestion is very good and necessary. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif That stupid situation when you loose battle without real fighting annoyed me much in MTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

But I disagree with other proposals of Nowake. These will be defeats.

[hoom]

Well I think it needs 5 possible outcomes of a battle:
major victory
minor victory
inconclusive
minor defeat
major defeat

[Dead Moroz]

Quote[/b] (arrrse @ June 04 2004,15:44)]Well I think it needs 5 possible outcomes of a battle:
major victory
minor victory
inconclusive
minor defeat
major defeat
Agreed.

There should be victory (major and minor), defeat (major and minor too) and retreat (from battlefield). Major and minor victories/defeats must make different effects on generals vices & virtues.

[The_Emperor]

They need to sort something out with this.

If a mainly horse Archer army raided an opposing army skirmishing and harrassing them causing many casualties and then withdrew from the field, should this be classed as a victory for the defending army? (because the Horse Archers ran away) or for the Horse Archers? (because they killed many of the enemy troops before they withdrew)

Clearly some sort of system needs to be worked out as to which is more important... Holding land, or killing the enemy.

So far in STW & MTW it has been holding land that is the key to whether a battle is victory or defeat, I think this should change to something based on overall casualty numbers and the manner of an army's departure on the field (did they march off in an orderly fashion, or were they running screaming for the hills).

Defining a victory is very difficult, but I think it should be on a more flexible scale, rather than just who holds the ground at the end of the fight.

[andrewt]

I agree that the current system isn't perfect and I would like changes to be made, if they are feasible and done correctly. I see a few problems, though.

If it is based somewhat on casualties, then factions and armies that rely on lots of lighter troops would be at a disadvantage against factions that rely on heavier troops. If it is based on percentage casualties, you could diminish them by adding lots of peasant type units to your army, thus inflating your army size and making your losses seem smaller. The only fix I see is assigning number values based on how strong a unit is, but formulas can't really capture the strength of a unit compared to another unit accurately.

Another problem is if you manage to rout the first few waves then the computer withdrew the rest. When is it considered a withdrawal and when is it considered a rout.

I think Nowake's suggestions 1 and 2 are good. I would amend suggestion 3, though, so that its the denarii value of the casualties that are inflicted that would be taken into account. After all, losing horse archers to kill peasants isn't really a good idea, unless you kill a lot of peasants. I'd probably also increase the casualty rate to around 25%-30%, though. That way, it's more feasible to use tactics intended to soften up a defense before attacking again the next turn.

[Monk]

I see some good sugestions, but i'd take anything that would prevent a situation like this: The general fights to the very last, holding off the enemy himself allowing his force to fall back off the field, then when he withdraws he is a "good runner" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[biguth dickuth]

I agree that the victory conditions should be reworked.

The adding of an "inconclusive" result under a set of well defined circumstances, as has already been mentioned, would be a good idea.

There are many historical examples of "inconclusive" battles, like the one in Kadesh, between the Hittites and the Egyptians.
The egyptians who were campaigning against the Hatti empire had been deluded into thinking that the hittite army was far away and were marching inside the enemy territory with their army divided in four columns, with a long distance from each other.
The hittites launched a surprising attack with their chariots on one of the columns and devastated it. The Pharaoh came into battle with the column he commanded and tried to pull his forces together. It was all uncertain untill the third column with some elite forces arrived and managed to push the hittite chariots back, which suffered significant losses.
However, the hittites had their entire infantry unengaged, unharmed and ready for battle, while the egyptians had lost almost a quarter of their army.

I used this historical example as it really signifies what an inconclusive battle is, since the hittites attacked, were defeated in close-quarter combat but they caused so many casualties that the egyptians were forced to abandon the campaign.
Of course, both kings claimed victory when they returned home

However, i don't consider the "minor victory" and "minor defeat" results to be neccessary as "a victory is a victory" and "a defeat is a defeat", no matter how many men you lose.
I agree that some victories are differrent from some other but it is up to the player to do the aftermath and decide his next moves.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

How about we have a 'points' system?

You would get points for cost of enemy troops destroyed, for the number of casualtys you took (in inverse proportion, of course), amount of land taken, and with a big bonus if you routed the enmey army.

The difference in points between you and your opponent could then be totted up, and this would be used to determine the scale of the victory.

[hoom]

If you are a good enough general to encircle & utterly defeat a major enemy army with relatively little friendly casualties eg Cannae, then that should do much more for your standing than a battle where there is relatively little actual combat but the enemy routs.
Hence Major & Minor.

It would be very tricky to implement any kind of more complex victory conditions properly for a number of reasons.
Amongst other reasons, many battles are only really able to be judged as victory or defeat when looked at with the benefit of hindsight.
Both sides often claim the victory.

Does a phyrric victory count as a minor victory or a major defeat?
Surely it depends on whether you get attacked again next turn & destroyed, or you have time to rebuild/reinforce your army.

How about if you make a strategic withdrawal to allow time for reinforcements to arrive, but it allows the enemy to bypass you & besiege Rome? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif
A massive victory if you can come back & pound them like some hot ore between the Wall & your Army, but a massive defeat if Rome is sacked.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] ](arrrse @ June 04 2004,15:44)
Well I think it needs 5 possible outcomes of a battle:
major victory
minor victory
inconclusive
minor defeat
major defeat

Agreed.

There should be victory (major and minor), defeat (major and minor too) and retreat (from battlefield). Major and minor victories/defeats must make different effects on generals vices & virtues.




No, I strongly disagree. This would be a futile system, looking at your general and saying: oh, he has 20 minor victories, and 4 major, and 3 minor defeats and ... The system must remain simple, victory or defeat. What must be corected is the deffinition of a battle

I whole-heartedly agree for my third sugestion with adrewt, in fact I wonder why I haven't forseen this as well http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif


Quote[/b] ]I think Nowake's suggestions 1 and 2 are good. I would amend suggestion 3, though, so that its the denarii value of the casualties that are inflicted that would be taken into account. After all, losing horse archers to kill peasants isn't really a good idea, unless you kill a lot of peasants. I'd probably also increase the casualty rate to around 25%-30%, though. That way, it's more feasible to use tactics intended to soften up a defense before attacking again the next turn.

[SwordsMaster]

Quote[/b] ]I see some good sugestions, but i'd take anything that would prevent a situation like this: The general fights to the very last, holding off the enemy himself allowing his force to fall back off the field, then when he withdraws he is a "good runner"


Yeah, I hate that.

You shouldnt get bad vices when you ACTUALLY order your gen to run, or if he had lost say 60% of his unti in a single battle and ran.


As for the rest of the Victory-defeat situations, I think that the whole TW army raising sistem has to be changed.

Officers should be there, you should ORGANIZE your army in a way that an army isnt just a bunch of units with different weapons, but a single fighting unit with a hierarchy, signals and all that.

So say in a battle you kill off all the standard bearers of the enemy and kill a mere 60 men. I is a victory as the enemy army will be disorganized for the next battle because the flags are taken and the units will be mixed up. The same if you kill the officers.

Or supply lines.

I believe that a soldier cant fight if he is hungry, undressed, cold and has no organization whatsoever. So if put them in that situation you win, without fighting.

The art of fighting without fighting in Bruce Lee´s words.