Suggestion:  Battle Plan for Tactical Postions

Something I was thinking about the other day while playing VI. Why not have a choice of strategies for meeting the enemy before the tactical map appears? Borrowing from the idea of tactics cards in the original Risk computer game when attacking you might chose: ambush, sneak attack, rear flank attack, recon in force, center attack, left flank advance, cavalry charge, etc. This, along with your general's level, terrain/climate and your opponents choice of defensive tactics would determine your initial starting position and set up. If your opponent chose the perfect counter you might find yourself in an absolutely horrible starting position. On the other hand if you chose well (and/or your opponent chose poorly) then you might find yourself with an easy win.

It sounds good, but perhaps you could explain it in more detail.

Methinks that would be a huge step back from the "free" (more "physical" and as such much more realistic) positioning of the troops as it is now.

Why would we want that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Jan. 02 2004,06:44)]Methinks that would be a huge step back from the "free" (more "physical" and as such much more realistic) positioning of the troops as it is now.

Why would we want that?

---

Well, in MTW/VI we don't truly have "free positioning" either. I often find my high command general's army positioned in a hole. Sure I can try to move the units around but the base position can often be one that the army is utterly unsuited for. Happens to the AI as well with its high command generals. In other situations I'm trying to coax the low command AI out of the trees with my high command general's army laden with a number of fine missile units. More than likely, the better general would pick a better engagement point/weather/tactic.

Same could be said for bridge battles, etc. Do you ever get to really ambush the enemy? Or be ambushed? The current scheme leads to a lot of camp on a hill fighting.

I had the idea of moving to this (in some situations at least) based on playing some of the historical scenarios where you have discontinuous or poorly placed troops.
It would be particularly interesting to have some positions that lend themselves to a two prong attack or hidden cavalry sweeping the rear, etc.

If you study battle histories carefully, you find that good generals often chose the field and the position for the engagement while their opponent was stuck reacting to a situation. In other situations with equal generals the point of contact is much more random than what we have. If you think that what we have is more realistic, then you are entirely mistaken. Most battles have been fought with much less information about the enemy, their whereabouts, and even when the battle would actually begin.

Plus how cool would it be to choose "ambush" only to find the AI high command general chose "feint" towards the ambush point then smashed into your flank instead? Of imagine choosing "cavalry charge on right flank" only to find the AI had chosen "defend left flank" (meaning your cavalry find they are charging head long into a prepared defense--perhaps one that is not so obvious such as marshy/muddy ground, anti-cav spikes or a line of spearman appearing from behind a slight depression.

Other things could happen like low command generals might not be able to get the bulk of their army on the field at once... Historically poor generals were notorious for spreading themselves to thin so that only a small portion of their force was in contact with the main body of the enemy. Good generals were often keen at using 2/3rd's of their troops to hit a key point. The opposing general would be late in getting reserves even on the field.

Though there will be a possibility to ambush enemy armies, I don't yet know how will it work exactly, I find that this idea has a certain value, yet it doesn't fit the game setting of the TW entirely. It is, as said, more suited for the board games than the oncoming R:TW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Plus how cool would it be to choose "ambush" only to find the AI high command general chose "feint" towards the ambush point then smashed into your flank instead? Of imagine choosing "cavalry charge on right flank" only to find the AI had chosen "defend left flank" (meaning your cavalry find they are charging head long into a prepared defense--perhaps one that is not so obvious such as marshy/muddy ground, anti-cav spikes or a line of spearman appearing from behind a slight depression.

---

Wouldn't this make the game more random? Just select a card and hope the enemy general doesn't accidentally select the right counter?

It would add some randomness to it, but that is more realistic. Plus what I propose is to have the success of a battle plan also predicated on your general's command strength. A one star general probably would not want to try anything complex against a five star, since he would most likely be unable to position/execute properly and would find himself on the battlefield in some compromised position. Low command generals would not even be allowed to try higher order battle plans, yet they might find themselves faced with sneak attack, ambush, or other unpleasant surprises. On the other hand, a high command general using high level battle plans would run some risk of having the difficult plan completely compromised.

Depending on some probability calcs. (tied to relative command and/or battle plan type) your opponent's position might be revealed or at least what battle plan he had chosen. Otherwise, their battle plan would only be revealed in the summary screen at the end.

The RISK "tactics cards" system brought some interesting features to a strategic game. Unfortunately, the devlopers neglected to provide any documentation to show what battle plan was the ideal counter to what, so we had to do a lot of guessing to figure out what was a counter to what.

Anyway, it's just an idea to add more variety to the initial positioning.

its kind of hard to ambush with 20,000 soldiers and assorted support etc. The campfires alone make it difficult enough. (Yeah I know it probably happened sometime, somewhere - just more the exception rather than the rule).

I understand where you're coming from as the way deployment is handled in MTW is poor imo and would anybody in reality have been follish enough to fight the bridge battles that are so common in MTW?

Just not sure this would be the right way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (desdichado @ Jan. 05 2004,03:59)]its kind of hard to ambush with 20,000 soldiers and assorted support etc. The campfires alone make it difficult enough. (Yeah I know it probably happened sometime, somewhere - just more the exception rather than the rule).

---

Ambush is indeed hard to accomplish with a 20,000 man army. However, with 2,000 man armies ambush is not an unreasonable tactic, particularly against an invader and is especially useful when the invading army is many times larger, perhaps 20,000 men. It is terrain dependent. Plotting ambush on open plains is not very brilliant. Doing so in mountain passes is not unusual. It can also be done in heavy forest or forested hills. Nathan Bedford Forrest used tactics like this with his division sized "armies" and was extremely adept at it. It should be uncommon overall because it requires several elements for success (good commander vs. weak, right terrain, etc.) however calling it an exception is a bit hard to swallow.

Much of it depends on keeping some visual of the enemy with scouts. The ambusher moves into a position without lighting fires or otherwise revealing the presence of his main body. Marching with light or no pack and with padded feet and equipment is used. Again, this requires disciplined command.

In naval warfare Midway was an ambush. The Japanese fleet's destination was known and a carrier force waited for the unsuspecting strike force.

Much more common than ambush is surprise attack. Many battles began with a surprise attack. I could give examples from Alexander, etc. Surprised armies should be in a disordered formation and take time for units to form up. They should also suffer a severe morale hit while the attacker gets a morale bonus. These effects could wear off if not used rapidly...

Bridge/River defenses are not uncommon. Rivers form natural boundaries that are crossed at bridges or fords. In surprise attack a force might cross in the night or through a ford you did not know about... On the other hand the surprise might fail and the crosser might find themselves ambushed at the bridge. Taking another approach, it might make more sense to periodially use a river as flank in the game (an aspect that is missing in MTW) rivers, marsh, or lake were often used as an "impenetrable" flank--although gifted types sometimes figured out how to cross the obstacle.

Red Harvest,

Agreed. But even though we fight in TW with 2,000 man armies, full scale battles of the like in MTW or RTW were rarely fought with this small number in ancient/medieval times. So TW represents these larger battles with a smaller number of troops due to limitations of technology so my comment is right in that context. Hell, if we could command 20,000 man armies with RTW I say bring it on but it's not going to happen anytime soon unfortunately.

Surprise attacks (ie. attacking at night, in the rain or before sun has risen, on a holy day etc) are certainly possible but different to an ambush imo. I just don't think ambushes were easy to achieve in the time period and types of battles RTW depicts.

Also, don't forget we are talking about armies in ancient times with limited transport, communications and command that was probably less inventive in many cases so comparing American civil war and Midway as examples is not really relevant.

Though it makes me think, will RTW have lines of supply - if so then it would be possible to have small companies of troops specifically to ambush such supply trains, reinforcement units etc. Something that could possibly be added as a feature so that guerilla warfare is an option.

About river/bridge defence I recall the English holding (and losing) a bridge to the French sometime after Agincourt when they were besieging Calais I think so yes, I agree they did occur just I think MTW overstates the number and way they were fought which I think is something RTW will correct - troops can ford rivers afaik.

And I would consider the bridge attack more as a skirmish/prelude to the actual battle, not the main battle itself.

Anyway thats enough rambling for now.