Some thoughts on the 3D map
So the age-old "Risk-style vs. 3D" debate continues to this day, and Shogun 2's put some new life into it. I'm trying to look at it from a new angle, and try to make an educated guess at how CA will handle this in Shogun 2 (I doubt they aren't aware of the criticisms and open to ways to improve their current model).
With RTW, the 3D map was billed not just as a graphical overhaul, but as a way to more realistically model terrain's affect on warfare, and in theory it delivered. It became possible to lay ambushes, to raid deep into enemy territory, to evade enemy strongpoints within provinces- but for all practical purposes, the only thing of value in a province was still the city, so "freedom of movement" really just meant the ability to move straight to a siege without fighting the enemy in the field. Because there were no smaller objectives- villages, forts, supply depots, etc- that contributed to the defense of the city and the usefulness of the province, even if you were able to move anywhere you rarely had any reason to. Since the only things worth defending with troops were the troop-producing cities themselves, battles became sieges except for occasional accidental encounters and defenses at a handful of chokepoints.
I haven't played ETW or NTW, but my understanding is that the game's come a long way in these respects since Rome and Medieval 2. The fact that the STW2 announcement video seems to suggest there's only about 20 large provinces/regions between 9 factions seems like a good sign that they've diversified the map more, and hopefully the AI knows the value of this. I don't blame the lack of field battles in newer TW games on a fundamental flaw of the 3D approach, I blame it on the fact that the managerial aspects of the game (governors, trade routes, and the like) were improved while military aspects of the map were completely neglected. Why would the AI seek out field battles when only sieges provide strategic gain? Give the player and the AI things that must be defended, make sure the AI factors them into its decisions, and more field battles will naturally follow. I'm hoping this is the approach CA is taking with Shogun 2, and what info we've got so far gives me reason to be cautiously optimistic.
Some thoughts on the 3D map
Quote:
but for all practical purposes, the only thing of value in a province was still the city, so "freedom of movement" really just meant the ability to move straight to a siege without fighting the enemy in the field. Because there were no smaller objectives- villages, forts, supply depots, etc- that contributed to the defense of the city and the usefulness of the province, even if you were able to move anywhere you rarely had any reason to. Since the only things worth defending with troops were the troop-producing cities themselves, battles became sieges except for occasional accidental encounters and defenses at a handful of chokepoints.
I agree with this, whole-heartedly. I chose not to purchase ETW and NTW so I don't know how things were made different. It seems from comments by those who have played those two, that placing smaller objectives in a province only provoked the AI into sending small, two unit stacks to do raiding. Many of the players comments seem to point this out as a very annoying feature. So perhaps some other system is needed?!?
I might venture a guess that removing the feature that ties city loyalty to having the garrison inside the city could help. Just having an army 'in province' should be enough.
Another might be that any army that enters a non-allied territory must halt immediately, and be subjected to an automatic DoW. Movement can resume the following turn. This might help with some of the aimless wandering by stacks looking for something to do, or the "what the @#$% are we doing here" syndrome, seen a lot in RTW.
Placement of roads is also critical. Being the fastest way to get around, most armies will be on a road somewhere, and much of the combat will likely be in the vicinity of roads.
Much of the combat in SJ times was of the siege kind, or as a result of sieges, so I'm not totally against this form of combat (and if CA incorporates some of the original style castles built in the SJ period, castle assaults will take on a very exciting...and hazardous, twist).
Re: Some thoughts on the 3D map
20 regions only ? 0_o
Wow, that really seems very few. It may be to emphasize the "field battles" aspect, but I'm not convinced at all it won't simply ends up in a massive simplification of the game - at least of the strategic map.
The problem with the map is the same than every single strategy game has encountered, and nearly no one ever bothered to implement : logistics and attrition. It was attempted in NTW, but from what I heard, it was a missed occasion and it became quickly irrelevant.
Make armies on the move take a little casualties each turn, and increase significantly these casualties depending on their situation (no supply lines => much larger attrition ; hostile territory => larger attrition ; hostile terrain (like desert) => much larger attrition), and you will quickly have much more realistic strategic-scale situations - like not having anymore these full-stack armies in the middle of nowhere that just walk around without purpose for decades.
But, for a reason I can't fathom, supply lines and attrition are elements that are nearly never used - and the few times they are used, they usually are completely OVERused, like in many Paradox games where any significant army just melt in two turns due to exagerated attrition.
Re: Some thoughts on the 3D map
Quote:
But, for a reason I can't fathom, supply lines and attrition are elements that are nearly never used - and the few times they are used, they usually are completely OVERused, like in many Paradox games where any significant army just melt in two turns due to exagerated attrition.
It's been my experience, as well. Either too little, or too much. However, I do like the way logistics & attrition are implemented in Talonsoft's "The Operational Art of War". Units have both a readiness and a supply value and they interact with each other. If supplies are low, then readiness is poor (measured against 100% of all portions of a units soldiers). The further you move a unit in a single turn, the lower it's supplies and readiness drop. You can send a unit into battle with various stages of supply/readiness, just don't expect good performance if both are low........
Re: Some thoughts on the 3D map
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akka
20 regions only ? 0_o
Yep. Looking at the video, I count 19, but it kinda suggests some of the island chains might be capturable, so maybe more like 21 or 22. (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure...cement-trailer)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akka
Wow, that really seems very few. It may be to emphasize the "field battles" aspect, but I'm not convinced at all it won't simply ends up in a massive simplification of the game - at least of the strategic map.
I don't doubt it, but when you really think about it under ETW/NTW-type province layouts there will probably be roughly the same number of total castles, just that one central castle will count as the capital. For example, most of the Kanto plain looks like one province, so most likely Edo will be the chief city and the castles from the original's different Kanto provinces will probably work like towns did in the newer TWs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akka
The problem with the map is the same than every single strategy game has encountered, and nearly no one ever bothered to implement : logistics and attrition. It was attempted in NTW, but from what I heard, it was a missed occasion and it became quickly irrelevant.
From what I've heard, I'd agree. Logistics was basically a way for units to replenish their troop numbers without retraining, so it extended an army's range rather than limiting it. There was one good feature added in ETW-NTW, and that was the ability for armies to intercept each other- instead of having to pass within one square of each other like in R/M2, armies project an area around them where they can engage any army that passes through it (players are prompted whether or not they want to intercept).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akka
Make armies on the move take a little casualties each turn, and increase significantly these casualties depending on their situation (no supply lines => much larger attrition ; hostile territory => larger attrition ; hostile terrain (like desert) => much larger attrition), and you will quickly have much more realistic strategic-scale situations - like not having anymore these full-stack armies in the middle of nowhere that just walk around without purpose for decades.
I think this is the missing ingredient. Armies should lose men when out of supply (I would add that they should recuperate men when in supply), and supply should be tied to agriculture.
The way I'd handle this if I made the game, would be to divide each province up into Districts, and have those districts be the source of both farming income and food supplies for armies. These districts could be occupied by an invader as long as they had at least a certain number of units present (like, say, 6) and outnumbered the defender's forces in the district by a large enough margin (say, 4 units), so their force would have to be reasonably large AND be considerably larger than any opposing forces in the area in order to take possession of it (there would be no siegeable settlements in the area, although there could conceivably be field fortifications or stockades in places). The central city would occupy a very small district with little farming of its own, and rely on supplies from the countryside, but by acting as an administrative center it makes the surrounding districts more lucrative- so even though an enemy can occupy all the provinces' farmland and natural resources, they will need to take the city in order to really make them lucrative. In the meantime though, they deprive the owner of all income from them and reduce the amount of supplies reaching the defenders at the city, pressuring them to sally and attempt to retake lost ground. The district setup also allows for more complex lines of communication within and between provinces and therefore a more realistic supply system, where armies can receive supply trains from outside the province, but must be prepared to defend them from enemy raids.
Sound good?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akka
But, for a reason I can't fathom, supply lines and attrition are elements that are nearly never used - and the few times they are used, they usually are completely OVERused, like in many Paradox games where any significant army just melt in two turns due to exagerated attrition.
As much as I like Paradox games, I agree. And the AI doesn't even seem to care, in EU3 I'll routinely see armies of over 20,000 men wandering through provinces with supply limits somewhere around 10.
Re: Some thoughts on the 3D map
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akka
The problem with the map is the same than every single strategy game has encountered, and nearly no one ever bothered to implement : logistics and attrition. It was attempted in NTW, but from what I heard, it was a missed occasion and it became quickly irrelevant.
Make armies on the move take a little casualties each turn, and increase significantly these casualties depending on their situation (no supply lines => much larger attrition ; hostile territory => larger attrition ; hostile terrain (like desert) => much larger attrition), and you will quickly have much more realistic strategic-scale situations - like not having anymore these full-stack armies in the middle of nowhere that just walk around without purpose for decades.
But, for a reason I can't fathom, supply lines and attrition are elements that are nearly never used - and the few times they are used, they usually are completely OVERused, like in many Paradox games where any significant army just melt in two turns due to exagerated attrition.
Actually, I feel that the attrition in NTW is very well administered. On lower difficulty levels, you are right, armies do not lose men just because they are in the field. But on Very Hard, they do. If they are in the desert or the snow they lose men as well.
Supply is also reasonably well represented through the unit replenishment system, where your units automatically get replenished by a few men each term, but the rate that this happens at depends on how built up the infastructure in the region is, and whether there are supply posts.
Re: Some thoughts on the 3D map
I like O'Hea's idea. I agree there have been too many sieges in previous TW titles. I feel there should be some buildup to taking a large city. Taking Rome should feel like your taking Rome darnit, not just another map objective like dozens before it. So make large siegable cities rarer, make the sieging experience itself more epic, and require some buildup time through capturing districts and maintaining supply lines.
There are only a few things I would add to the other ideas presented here: Give each 'district' a center that needs to be captured in order to control the district. This would focus the action in the region, hopefully making things easier for the player and especially the AI. Capturing this district would not necessarily result in a siege battle, but more often a field battle with terrain depending on where the district center itself lies and from which direction it is being approached. However, a limited number of these district centers could be fortified with castles or similar, and require a siege to be taken. Only a limited amount of districts could be fortified in any given larger region. The ability to place each fortification could be "built" in the region capital, and the player could choose which districts to fortify. This would add another layer of strategy by allowing to player to choose which particularly valuable regions or strategic choke-points to defend.
Re: Some thoughts on the 3D map
Hmm, having things in the province other than the main castle is a good idea, but if there are as many things to capture/defend as there were in ETW that will be a monumental pain. The number of times the AI sent out pathetic little armies to burn the exact same town, and getting massacred the exact same way....
I just hope that only really important strategic castles, mines, ports, towns, etc are included. A province with no important resources or strategic choke points should have no "extra" things to capture.
