Ideas for War Game Engine

[mizuYari]

Here are some ideas of the war-game engine.

1. TERRAIN
Terrain is one of the best idea STW introduced and having some success at it. However, in multiplayer games, due to limitted way to setup multiplayer games, it is perceived as "unfair" to defend mountainous terrain, and 80% of battles are fought on flat land like Totomi or the aberration of Ironboard. Ironboard simply takes away the terrain idea and reduce the game to 2-D Nintendo-like games.

In real life, there is a cost to hold very stiff hills. That is access to supply. The idea of supply route is something a field commander must always worry about. You can hole up in a castle, but a castle won't have enough supply for a large army. You can camp on high mountain, but access to water and food could be a problem. The enemy doesn't need to attack you, simply have to wait until you are out of food. He actually force you to charge downhill.

This is not to say holding high mointain passes are not realistic. Actually it is quite realistic. What I am saying is that the multiplayer battles have to be tied up to multiplayer campaigns.


Example:
-------
A country have a number of soldiers in its army. Its ruler may have to decide how many troops ordered to defend the capital, how many to man border forts, how many shall be used in an invasion of a neighbor country, how many are in logistic supports (such as defending supply routes and key resource areas or supply depots).

A neighboring country may decide to mass its troop onto a couple of border passes, overrun the defense there, bypass the capital but control 90% of the resources. The defending country may have to give up other defensive positions to rescue their resources, without which, the army simply disintegrates.

To sum up:
---------
In order to have better multi-player battles using the realism of terrain:
Multiplayer battles have to be linked up with multiplayer campaign where decision of garrison high mountains must be at expense comparing of defending lower, less defensible but richer resources (it costs more to maintain mountaineous and remote forts);

MizuYari
disgrunted spearman, retired general
now consultant for the Peasant Revolution

[mizuYari]

2. TERRAIN AGAIN

I have seen positive steps taken by MTW in terrain. They said that "terrain of the campaign map will be translated to terrain of the battle field". The direction of attack is important and will change the way the battle will be fought.

I believe this is a very good improvement.

There is a next step that could be done for multiplayer campaign.

I would imagine the campaign map that shows real-time troop movements. You order the troops to move from one place to another. It will move with the speed determined by the composition of the army. The campaign map shows the relief of mountains, rivers and acurate locations of the forts/castles. When the troops of different armies are at proximity, there will be a fight and the fight is determined by the location on the campaign map.

Examples:
--------
1. Army A is in haste of going to siege enemy's castle (just discover gunpowder and was upbeat about the potential of using it on the thick wall castle). It is unaware of enemy's troop massing at the near-by forest. Currently, since the troops are deployed in fix location, it is known how to attack or defense a certain location. However, if the position is dynamic, the defender couldn't deploy their secret army too far from the castle (the attacker may chose different route to attack the castle). Ambush is a much more potent threat. The attacker may even do its own ambush: sending troops to the siege to lure out the defenders then ambush it in a separate battle where they already out of their defensive position.

2. Dynamic terrain also allows more realistic use of horses: the mobility factor.
The Mongol had such an overwhelming advantages in relative short period of time because they changed the composition of the army. All cav army has the strategic advantages that predominently infantry army at the time cannot match. They can chose to cross a river at a place it is not defended. If the defender chose to man a bridge, the mongol simply moves their army to another place. By the time the defender found the Mongol army, half of their country is already sacked.

The stationary army also face tactical dilema of a more mobile army. The mobile army may chose when and where the battle will be fought.

Another argument returns to the concept of supply route and mobility which would make the importance of terrain somewhat different than just height.

In Summary:
----------
If Batle map is a zoomed up version of the Campaign map, then the game will be at a much higher tactical/strategic values.

It is not for nothing that Sun-Tzu devoted an entire chapter to "Terrain".

[rageXghost]

mizuYari
yes most players would agree, but online campaigns have been tried,
and the ugly are trying, a campaign at the moment and we hope
it gos well for them ,

Hill maps are much more of a challenge and good fun
but why the honours system exists people will play the ironing board because they believe that's what makes them a good player,

unfortunately it makes them one-dimensional players.
if more players use patch 1.03 more players would play Hill Maps

http://www.gdarkness.com/4degrees/skullani.gif

Ghost



Keeper Of the Crypt

[mizuYari]

3. SUPPLY ROUTE

The concept of supply route is as old as organized warfare. (The others are mobility, terrain and technology).

Alexander the Great said (and I translated from Greek without able to read Greeek): "He who controls supply routes will control the battle field."

Sun-Tzu repeatedly talk about importance of supply. I repeat here without actually know how to read Chinese:

"The ratio of combat troops to support troops is in the order of 1/3" (1/4th of the total army actually participate in combats).

"In constricted terrain, where the army is deep into the enemy's country, the army must live off the local economy."

"In preparation for a campaign, the commander must accumulate and store supplies, plan the route to send it to the invading army, protect it from raid of enemies."

"The invading army raids the supply centers of the enemy, thus rob the enemy of his supply while keeping his army well fed."

I can go on and on, but here are some historic illustration of why supply route is important.

I already quoted Alexander the Great. His campaign into Asia may not illustrate the point he made (infact, it is a counter example of supply: he lead his army into so far away place and made his army so dependent of local supply that in the end, he has to retreat and almost had his army anihilated in the desert). But Alexander's army illustrated the importance of "living off the enemies' supply".

The Roman Empire is an Great Empire because of the extensive road network they built. They can send army from place to place quickly. They can send supply quickly. They also built their empire around the Mediterranean which acts as a highway by sails.

The Chinese Empire started around 2nd Century BC also is held together by an extensive network of roads and canals.

In Napoleonic Wars, the Russian use "Scorch Earth" strategy, deny Napoleon and his generals of the option of "living off the enemy's supply" and won the first war against Napoleon.

The German Third Reich army also was caught in the Russian winter where supply to the front was inadequate (German troops surrendered when ran out of food, ammunition and even not have enough warm cloths).

Even in modern warfare, the US generals still need to secure supply routes before they can project their forces onto an enemy's country.

How Supply Route Concept Could be Applied
-----------------------------------------

It all ties to how the economy is modeled.

1. The ruler may collect tax in currency and use it to buy food, make armors/weapons, raise horses. If he intent to invade another country, he may need to stockpile supplies. He needs to defend the supply depots. He need to make decision of not stockpiling food but build thicker castle walls.

2. The army needs to defend its supply routes and depots. If supply is raid, the army runs out of supply and will face disintegration (unless they made a decisive victory or succeed to raid depot, or bring supply through new route).

There will be incentive to attack castle: you can take the treasury stored in there. There also will have deterrant of holing up in castle, letting other control the surrounding resources, collecting tax and levy troops from the peasants, while letting the castle3D type of players starve.

(Example: the crusaders only control the castles they are in, the Arab controls the arrounding country, supply had to be shipped from afar).

In Summary:
-----------
Integrate the Supply and Supply Route concept to the game may simulate better the conditions of battle.

People will see the cost of defending the highest mountain: they would have to bring supply to the mountain, costing them more. The attackers could simply cut the supply route by attacking the lowest position.

[mizuYari]

I am writing these in the light of "what would I do to make a different war game", not simply to adapt STW/MTW. Anyways, it is simply a theoretical exercise, because I know full well of the technical challenge of writing the game software.

MizuYari
Daydreamer

[Puzz3D]

Hi Yari,

Nice post. You're able to see what this game could be. While it is a great game, it falls far short of it's potential.

The hilly maps are fun in big 3v3 and 4v4 games. Even in 2v2 it's possible to attack and win on a very hilly map. To my mind the mistake that some players are making is thinking that they have, in Shogun, a serious competative game. Most of the ironboard games are determined during the army selection, and not on the battlefild. The game is not balance well enough to be a competative game, and the ironing board map lays bare the imbalances more than any other map.

MizuYuuki ~~~
Clan Takiyama ~~~

[mizuYari]

Hi MizuYuuki,

I am trying to rewrite the rules of the game and perhaps give the Takiyama clan a bit advantage. LOL

MizuYari
Official Spearman of Takiyama Clan

[Puzz3D]

MizuYari,

No need to do that. We are able to field a formidable force in multiplayer battles now with MizuTosaInu, MizuKraellin, MizuKokami and MizuOrdaKhan. Hope you can join us on the battlefield. Get Vanja's statswapper, and come and try out the v103 stat.

MizuYuuki ~~~
Clan Takiyama ~~~

[MizuKokami]

hi yari http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
long time no chat. i love your idea. i have allways hoped that someday someone would create a virtual world that, when zoomed in on, would scroll during battles. various armies would have near misses and never even have to face each other. while armies could agree to meet to finish this war once and for all. the sacking of villages, even destroying your own land in the event that you needed to beat a hastey retreat. yummy http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif hmmm, could you imagine the spy network one would need in order to obtain the neccesary info of your enemy's supply routes and troop positions. wowsers http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
well, i'm computer illiterate, so you won't get any help from me...hehe
hope to see you soon yari http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
MizuKokami

[LittleGrizzly]

wow i cant not completely agree!

[FasT]

MizuKraellin though he left Shogun?

MizuYari he a long lost clan m8 or a new one?

[LittleGrizzly]

didnt now bout first one

second one i did wonder about

[Khan7]

Supply routes only really come into play long term. Nothing as short-term as a single STW turn, a single STW battle. The army will be carrying enough with it to last for that period of time.

And, when situated on a high hill, your enemy can TRY to cut your supply, but, given your postion, which is not only TACTICALLY superior (giving you greater fighting effectiveness), but also STRATEGICALLY superior (greater ease of shifting position)... that's no small trick.

If your enemy is fortified on a hill, and you lack the strength to attack him there, you will obviously need to force him down off of it. But there are other ways to do this than cutting his supply.

I can think of 1 (one) historical instance in which some even attempted such a stunt. The Gauls attempted to sneak around, storm Caesar's rearmost fort, and thus force him to attack. They failed. Faced with his unassailable fortified camp which was in no danger of running out of supply, they snuck off into the night and disbanded, leaving Gaul to fall piece by piece to his advancing army.

-EDIT: It is also worth noting that Caesar might have sallied into open battle and trounced the Gallic then and there, just for shits and giggles, except that they had at least twice as many men..-

Interestingly, later the Belgii almost destroyed his army by ambushing it on the road.. but Roman discipline and arms, and Caesar's moral influence as a leader, saved the day-- barely.

Matt

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 07-13-2002).]

[mizuYari]

MizuYari is a long-time-no-play Takiyama Foot Soldier. As his name implied, he is part of the Spear Squad.

The server doesn't like me anymore. It doesn't let me in. Besides, I suck http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

MizuYari

[mizuYari]

The idea of supply route must be implemented together with the idea of 2-level zoomable online campaign (campaign map shows some realism of terrain).

The attacking army wont be able to force the defender down from high hills by cutting supply route if it is only a few months. But an isolated army will have to do something before food runs out. Also, as a ruler, I may not want to send all of my army to a high mountain, the attacker may ignore the campers and simply lay claim to the lower land, build their own forts (the way the Romans in Khan's example against the Gaules) and force the defenders (actually were the Gauls, as Romans were invading Gaule) to attack.

Please add more ideas if you could. There is an infintessimal chance that someone will read the idea and implement it and make an interesting online campaign game.

MizuYari
ps: I am sure my Clansmates are more formidable players. I was joking. BTW, I am just following the examples of MizuTosaInu and MizuYuuki for contributing to the Forum in the Takiyama's way.

[Khan7]

Yes but you see the attacker will, as a general rule, be in a worse supply situation than the defender. Which means that the attacker, on average, will be forced to... attack.

As far as defending a high mountain.. this was rarely done. Maybe if the mountain commanded an important pass, as at Thermopylae (or whatever it was, with the Persians). But as far as defending a hill.. well, if the hill is strategically located, then BAM! You can probably force him to attack you there. Good example of this is when Harold came and deployed along a ridge which totally cut William off from the mainland (and then brought down his fleet to bottle in the Norsmeman's, basically trapping him on the Hastings peninsula). William was surprised, but knew enough to attack immediately, and.. the rest is history.

Matt

[Kraellin]

hello yari :)

good to see you again!

and yes, supply and support would add an interesting element. i've seen games attempt this before but very few. i've also seen games that dont hold to standard border-only control zones. i also like this aspect. one controls an area which isnt necessarily a province or country but is simply determined by what it has overrun or holds and this becomes a zone of control.

and fast,

i am one of the founding members of takiyama, along with yuuki (puzz3d) and tosainu. i am still a mizu and will continue to be so. my forum name was created before the clan so it doesnt have the mizu in front of it, but i assure you i am mizukraellin :)

and for those interested, we are the takiyama clan, but chose to use mizu as the prefix before our names because takiyama was a bit long as a prefix. and as for the meanings of these words, tosa can explain them better than i.

K.


------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

[MizuKokami]

one of the important things to note in warfare, is that the attacking army has an objective. as krae said, obtain zones of control. as an attacker advances inside the defenders territory, it actually becomes the defenders roll to become the attacker, so as to prevent the invaders from obtaining a foothold. because once they gain the foothold, it becomes increaseingly difficult to rid the land of enemies. it isn't until an invadeing army actually has a foothold, that the defending armies find it neccesary to fortify themselves on hills, ridges, and castles. so it kinda works like this,...the attackers find a place to defend, and the defenders find a place to attack. so in reality, the attacker is really the defender, and the defender is really the attacker.
so if we were to make a realistic war game, we would definately have to make sure that the key issues of conquest would be the supply routes and the spy networks. so the programming of the game should be done in such a way that if you don't secure information and supply routes, you won't stand a chance in heck of succeeding. and scouting like what is done with civ. or aoe, where all you have to do is send a unit to an area you wish to see, shouldn't work. but that unit would also have to survive and return to some sort of base of opperation. maybe when the scout returned, it would return with screenshots that you commanded your scout to get.
this brings up another point of a potential aspect of realistic qonquest games. your economy, and how you will allocate resources and wealth. did you train your scouts well enough to be able to travel thru enemy lands and come back alive? how well has your enemy built up his own land's surveilance network?

sigh, if we really sat down to think about it, we could come up with so many points to be considered, it would almost seem insurmountable. a game of that magnitude would need to be several discs, haveing one disc for your spy network, one for the economy, one for the armies...etc., just to keep it all working together. hell, it would take one disc alone just to hold all the various maps you would need by endgame.

[mizuYari]

MizuKokami talked about having disks to hold maps. Here is an idea.

Since the campaign map (the map of the lands) have some information about the feature of the land, it may be possible to have the battle map generated on the fly when the battle is forming. Let's say the battle shall be fought over an area of 20x20 grids, the campaign map would hold the height of the grid, the terrain type. The battle map will be generated using these information. Therefore, there wont be any need to store all the maps.

MizuYari

[MizuKokami]

i didn't actually mean maps for battles that are being or would be fought, as much as i ment maps via intelligence from scouts. a scout goes on a mission to spy out the land, to discover the territory so you know what you are getting into. ever see any of the documentuaries of intelligence gathering? i saw one that was about the intelligence gathered during ww2. on their desk, they had hundreds of photos. for the realism effect, when marching to meet a enemy, you would have to look over your drawings of terrain to try to figure out where the enemy could be dug in, and determine where you wanted to draw them into battle. for an instance, if you had intelligence that suggested your enemy had chariots, you would try to get to a place where chariots had limited mobility.

[This message has been edited by MizuKokami (edited 07-17-2002).]