Reinforcement Solution

In my mind, there should be a little more player control in the deployment of reinforcements. I highly doubt that Daimyo would allow random utilization of such strategic assets.

With the implementation of the new "swap out" button (found on the top right during the deployment phase of combat), it wouldn't be a stretch to have a similar button become active when a unit diengages and leaves the field.

For example, if I order my spent archers to withdraw to make room for fresh units, and in battle I am in desperate need of some more archers, I should be able to choose archers from my reserves instead of the YA I don't need. Also, why not have the opportunity to deploy them (choose the point of entry) in areas under my control or my side, for ease.

Please comment.

Totally agree,
A simple list of available re-inforcements would make life a lot easier. The new swap out button is great and they need to be commended on it but it would be nice if in the patch they put some work in to this.

Also the speed that re-inforcements come in to the field of play and where they come in is going to be an issue I am sure in the expected patch.

it would be nice if i could see a popup of my reinforcements as soon as i've got an opening. (a unit is "withdrawn" triggers the event)

PLUS, the ability to choose the unit & click on the minimap to order where i'd get my troops...This might open up the possibility one would have 16 ashigaru and withdraw them ASAP in order to come in with better troops to the enemy rear.

Exactly. As soon as your cowardly YA leave the field, the button becomes active. You click the button, which gives you a preview of your reserves. Pick the one you want and the location you need them and poof, they enter at the nearest legal location (it would be a little silly if you could deploy reinforcements behind the enemy of have them beamed into the middle of the fray). They should have to travel the shortest distance between where you want them and the border of a controlled area of the map.

We should move this discussion to: http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000200.html

[This message has been edited by Otokomi Innue (edited 08-30-2001).]

Very interesting ideas, worth a bump. It really sounds good. Target should check this out.....

there seems to be a confusion on the difference between reinforcements and reserves here. they are not necessarily the same thing and the game doesnt help with this much.

reserves are units that YOU bring to battle along with the rest of your army but hold off to one side till you need them.

reinforcements are generally troops that didnt come with your regular army but are arriving on the scene from somewhere else to help out cause they heard a cry for help or just happened into the area, or because they couldnt get to the battle soon enough due to travel times or something.

so, whereas you can call reserves a type of reinforcement, let's make a distinction here for the sake of how things shld work.

i have no problem on a campaign map where you have a huge army in being able to send units to the rear and allowing other units to come in at your discretion. that's as it shld be, and they shld come in from an area that is favorable to you. that also makes sense.

however, in multiplayer games where reinforcements arrive there is not distinction as to whether these are reserves or true reinforcements that have arrived from somewhere else. this may account for why some folks want reinforcements to come in ONLY from their side of the map, while others see reinforcements as arriving from outlying provinces that have responded to a cry for help and may well come in from just about anywhere. both are valid arguements, but the game makes no distinction in this as to how they arrive and whether they are reserves brought with your original army or reinforcements arriving from somewhere else.

in single player, i think most cases, if not all, are where the units are really reserves and not arriving-from-outlying-provinces reinforcements. in multi i tend to think of reinforcements as true reinforcements and NOT reserves. thus we have at least two situations and modes of play and reasoning but only one style of bringing in extra units from off the map. perhaps a distinction could be made somehow in the code to allow for both options.

for multi, i like it how it now is in the xpack, but could also see limiting at least one side of the map for the opponents control and not bringing in any extra troops from that one side, but in single player, i think reinforcements are really reserves and this shld prolly be changed.

K.


------------------
I'm sorry, but i never apologize.

The issue I have with the proposed change to reinforcements is that such control is great for planning, but is not necessarily what will happen in execution. Your taisho is on the battlefield (hopefully http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif) and your reinforcements are far away and moving up. They may or may not show up where you want them to due to any number of reasons: initiative, boldness, or cowardice of the commander of the reinforcing units, weather or terrain considerations, change in some off field situation, etc.

The only grumble I have with the way the reinforcements are handled is the way they are scattered around. I would think most of the reinforcements would be coming from the same direction. It seems unlikely that each unit would take a different rout to the battlefield.

As for the complaint about reinforcements coming in on the other side of the river, that could be interpreted as the commander of the reinforcements finding an unmarked or undefended ford and boldly taking advantage of unanticipated good fortune.

As you know from playing the game, what your battle plans are and what actually happens don't necessarily match. Things can get quickly out of control if you are not careful. That same uncertainty should be reflected in those reinforcements waiting off the battlefield.

------------------
Gregoshi
A Member of Clan Doragon

Quote Originally posted by Gregoshi:
That same uncertainty should be reflected in those reinforcements waiting off the battlefield.
[/QUOTE]

I'll call it CERTAINTY instead. Because you CERTAINLY won't get the reinforcement that you wanted.

Gregoshi, the problem with reinforcements appearing on the "wrong" side of the river by Taisho A being bold and aggressive is that Taisho B should be picketing the same river crossings to let him know if the enemy is trying them. I don't have a problem with this bit of chess play, _if_ the game had an operational level. Since this only occurs in SP, it is not a big deal, I simply have a few shock or cav units available to deal with the situation. On defense, I don't pursue and just run out the clock. On offense, I keep troops on my side of the bridge to deal with the latecomers. It is annoying though.......

In my opinion, the flaw is more the appearance that the deployment of reinforcements is random instead of the product of the grand strategy of warfare's mastermind. Giving more player control and AI to emulate Sun Tsu and his rules of deployment, would improve the joy of the game. I would like to be outsmarted by the AI.

When I bought the original, more than a year ago, and as I learned to play, I was more and more intrigued by the notion that the AI was fashioned to model the strategies of this philosopher warrior.

Why not now? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif

Just to add a bit here:

I usually don't have a problem locating my... ummm.... backup? troops during a battle because they obviously become visible on the radar (can you resize this window)?

I kind of like the idea that these new troops come to the field in a disorganized fashion when their general has routed... they wouldn't have any real cohesion, so it might make sense that they appear at different spots on the map (which actually isn't that big). But i agree that if you're winning the battle and your general is alive, there's no real reason for units to arrive all over the place (and stay where they arrive - they should come to your main force).

However:

The good thing about it is that you don't have to move clear to the other side of the map, after routing the enemy, to engage your enemy's reinforcements as AN ENTIRE FORCE... and some of your own are generally nearby. Fatigue factors enter here, and you can do the math from there.

Also i don't like the idea of people being able to determine where they want their new troops to appear. Imagine fighting a tough battle, then your enemy routs his own troops, causing his new troops to appear directly behind you or directly on your flank, your own soldiers tired from chasing the routing troops off the map. This might be a concern, especially on bridge maps and smaller maps.

Or maybe your entire first force is composed of (cav) archers who, having expended their arrows, cutting the enemy's forces in half and soakingup arrows (with a couple kensai), are immediately routed off the field in favor of the powerhouse troops... you lose very little of your own troops, and decimate the enemy with the heavy hitters on their flank at the edge of the map to which you routed.

I'm not saying that this will happen every time or anything, just that it would be possible for folks to sort of take advantage of it.

Rather, some of you i think would like to see new troops appear on a predetermined half of the map and appear in relatively the same spot. But again, you run into the problem of your enemy figuring out where that spot is, after routing your first force, and just sitting his army there. I don't know that the space of one of the 4 edges of the map is big enough to solve this problem...

I don't know that there's any easy solution to this. Problem solving is more than just looking at a problem and finding the solution... it's also about envisioning potential problems caused by your solution and minimizing or eliminating those as well.

As it stands now, i'm not sure what should be done. The way it is done now isn't SO bad; i believe that backup troops should appear at random spots (but furthest from the enemy) much as they do now but should, unless told otherwise, march to meet with your main force if it's still there. If it's not... well... like i said, the way that's handled is okay for me because the new troops should be disorganized anyway.

I don't know.
But i'm just speaking for myself. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

An interesting point on the "half-map" solution. I do feel that reinforcements arriving on the "appropriate" side of the map in random spots is likely the best answer. So lets consider for a moment your point. Lets say I rout the enemy, and use 2 yari cav to enforce the rout and pick off a slew more of the unfortunate enemy. When all is said and done - the 2 cav units are seperated from my main force, and vulnerable to a pincher from reinforcements. They should suffer a huge morale hit as soon as enemy forces show up on each side of them.
On the flip side, what if I bring all my forces into the "enemy" side and just sit and wait on those reinforcements to appear, routing them thru force of numbers? Not a good thing, but more "realistic" than what we have currently. Not to mention, given the size of the current battlefields, units approaching at random on one half the field will not all be confronted by the bulk of my army, as the size is too great to allow my men to run back and forth constantly.

One last suggestion to this - a logic algorithm. I have never liked pure random placement - lets use semi-random - any area on the correct half of the battlefield is "legal" for reserves to arrive. However, no unit commander is going to run his troops onto the battlefield into an overwhelming force and then immediately rout. Instead, he would WAIT until someone on the other side of the field entered and allowed him good position. This could be implemented by making a logic routine that would hold reinforcement units back if they would enter and immediately face 2x-3x their number in enemy. Given the size of the battlefields, a unit of 16 men, after having routed the original force, could not keep 120-180 men groups spread evenly enough to keep out enemy reinforcements. Some would appear, and the shifting of forces to hit them will create more breaches - allowing more forces in. Thus ending the "lets go into the other side and just rout the enemy when he walks in" problem. It would force a general to pull his rout chasers back, reset his structure and continue tactical battle, instead of allowing and encouraging the current "HEY! GO GET THAT GROUP OVER THERE" mentality. Tell me, how many of you end battles with your forces strung and scattered over a battlefield? Heck, how many of you have them scattered when the enemy brings in fresh units? Historically, and not just in japan, an army in disarray hit with fresh units was in bad shape.

The above would go along way to making that kind of realism happen. Anyone see any flaws in the logic? Feedback welcome.


------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

Sounds good to me. If the enemy was organized, I would have to reply with equal organization...STRATEGY!!!

There are two ideas:

1.The idea of controlled space on the field could work like this. A percentage of troops (or specific number of troops) would qualify an area as being "controlled". 2 Units of YC would not qualify, making them as vulnerable as you described as the enemy would still have theoretical control of that portion of the map (his default half). A larger force could do 2 things:
a)Control enough of the map (rout all or most of the enemy troops) to prevent any reinforcements. This prevents the sacrifice of weak reinforcements in small numbers who have no hope of pushing us back.
b)If I control 2/3 of the map, or a specific objective (that ridge on the east) it would be very strategic to march my new troops from the nearest controlled border to that objective.

2.The option to choose from the available forces. I took the trouble to bring 5,000 troops to this province, I want to deploy them as I see fit, where I see fit (control).

A bonus idea is this. The controlled area could be identified in the "Map View" in a similar manner to how it is set up during the deployment phase (transparent overlay).

I believe this would all work well because it can be easily implemented. These ideas would use the same tools and 'code' that is already complete during the deployment phase.

There are some excellent points made in each of your posts for ways to handle reinforcements. I agree that in reality there is a distinction between reserves and reinforcments, but that distinction is not made for friendlies in STW. The only armies that are available in a province during a battle are the ones that we placed there on purpose, and not any forces that may have crossed borders to aid after the battle is joined. Only the enemy A.I has this capability in either STW or WE.

My question would be this. Just what is practical when it comes to what the developers can do at this point? It would seem logical that we could have a choice between the old method or the new, but can they give us anything in between or something completly new without major coding?

With the old method, you could easily defend against ten 16 unit armies with only one and
a half armies of 16. You had to live with a specific order of reinforcements and the same entry place, but at least you could control the time of entry. When attacking with those odds in your favor, you would simply auto-resolve.

I always rationized that the first instance was OK since it was the only way to deal with the horde, and the second was OK because I was the horde. Since the horde is now gone the old method may not be as vadid for game balance. The new method however, takes away almost any control you ever had over your own reserves, and having them show up on the wrong side of the map implies strategies that I don't think are within the scope of this game.

If I am the general of an army, and I have control of my army, then I should have total control of it's reserves, and conversely have very little control over my enemies reserves other that his reaction to my action, or until such time that I have the upper hand and he is routed. When an army is routed it would seem unlikely that reserves that did not comprise sufficient numbers ,or possibly comprise a separate cohesive army, would be of much use.

It would seem like, as many suggest, that a mix of the two methods would be best. My choice would be to have control of the time, type,and placement for friendly reinforements with no units appearing behind opposition lines,and the A.I. should have the same control unless one of us is in total route.

The bottom line is that this an area of warfare that the developers should have paid more attention to in the first place, and the even bigger question is just what can they do to fix it at this point. I hear that there may only be one shot at a patch and then we may have to live with what we get.

Of course all of this is just my opinion, and you know what your proctologist says about opinions.

Cheers

------------------
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.



[This message has been edited by Forward Observer (edited 09-01-2001).]

i totally agree that you shld have total control over your original placement of 'reserves', but this shld ONLY occur BEFORE you begin an actual battle. and there shld be some distinction of whether units coming in from off the map are reserves or reinforcements. if you bring reserves there shld be a way to designate, before battle, where these reserves are stationed and therefore where they will come in from. and ostensibly you wouldnt be able to place them on an opponent's side of the map, or at least behind him. that just makes very little sense. but it does make sense, if they are reserves and not just reinforcements, that you could say, 'ok, you guys wait here for my signal'.

i think part of our problem in this current thread is that some of you are playing mostly single player, while others are playing multi. and these arent the same situations. the conditions are different. in single player games, units arriving from off the map, are almost always going to be 'reserves', while in multi, it's almost always the reverse. castle games in multi, to my mind, are gamess where i've got a force stuck in a castle, but being outnumbered and i need help. you wouldnt have reserves just sitting outside this castle in the rain waiting for an enemy. this is a garrisoned castle army. all garrison troops would be stationed in the castle. anything arriving from outside would be reinforcements arriving from elsewhere...and it's this 'elsewhere' that is in question. thus, i have no problem with units arriving from all over, or at least from 3 of the map sides (not the attacker's side). and these types of reinforcements wouldnt necessarily be coming from the same place. someone in the castle said, 'holy sh*t, we're going to get our butts kicked...go get help!'. a messenger is sent out to look for whomever he can find from wherever he can find them.

there are also king of the hill games in multi that are NOT a part of campaigns or custom games. i LIKE how they arrive for this game style and i wouldnt change that one bit.

i think most of the arguements in the above posts are talking about single player campaign games and i totally agree that one shld have control of these units as long as placement is done BEFORE the battle actually begins. you cant just say, 'ok, i want to bring in my reserves now, so let's see...how bout if i have them come in from over here or over there so that they instantly flank my opponent.' and i also dont mind if you place some of them here and some over there as long as their original arrival location is designated beforehand.

by having to designate where your units will arrive, if they are reserves and not reinforcements, this would add to the tactical planning a general has to make before he ever starts an actual fight.

the bottom line here seems to be that reserves are much more controlled, backup units, while reinforcements are random, come from almost anywhere, cavalry come to the rescue type of units. i think there is a place for both in this game and i hope they amend the program to account for this.

and one last note; if they are not going to patch this, then i still prefer the new method to the old. camping at your enemie's reinforcement location was just too easy, even in multi games and maybe particularly in multi games. it sucked rocks.

K.


------------------
I'm sorry, but i never apologize.

I thought that the reinforcements came from the direction of where they were placed on the strategic map... I haven't tried this but that is what my brother has told me.

Maybe someone should set up a battle where one army is maxed out with an extra unit or two. When these two armies attack, place the smaller one on the opposite side of the "victim". While in the battle withdraw one and see if the reinforcements come from behind the victim.

right now I'd be glad just to have my reinforcements show up on the battlefield.
I think the whole randomization of units and where they appear is to help make the game a little more computer-game-ish by introducing unexpected things. While I can understand (and also wouldn't mind some of the things suggested here) the reasons for addign this or that feature, the predictability might risk making the game a little less exciting.

Kraelin,

Your concerns about making a distinction between reserves and reinforcements truly has been a problem and it lies as you said in the distinction between the two modes of play.

Let me clarify the intent of this thread. The MP that I have been involved in, in no way, would benefit from what I suggest. So yes, my ideas revolve around the SP. It is during SP that only a portion of your troops enter the field, that the location of REINFORCEMENTS (troops not yet on the field) is random, that they are late and not the troops that if thew player were in control, choose first. These ideas have nothing to do with reserves (troops on the field).

So let me repeat myself. It is my conviction that a good Daimyo plans an attack thoroughly and from start to finish. This said, when I bring two seperate armies to a province for battle, their placement and timing should reflect brilliant strategy through and through, not just for the initial troop deployment.

Flanking the enemy troops (cheating) with reinforcements should not be an issue as the point of entry must already be controlled by your armies. This area of control would be well defined using existing features of the game (the coloured areas on the map view during initial deployment).

The way the campaign battles are now, with regard to reinforcements, has to change. Most of us agree.

Go here http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002081.html for the ultimate reinforments discussion. let's nail this one down so that it changes!!!

Feedback please!

otokomi,

ok, i see what yer saying, and in fact, we're saying the same thing, just calling things by different names. yer naming units on the field as reserves. i'm naming units off the field as reserves..that 2nd army waiting off the map. and yer naming that 2nd army off the field as reinforcements. ok. i follow.

and yes, i agree, ANY army YOU bring for a battle shld be under your control, barring unforseen circumstances. i think we differ a little in the way this 2nd army would enter the map, but the point is almost moot compared to how things currently are. i'd simply allow the player to designate, within reason, where this 2nd army enters the field, and i believe yer saying just use the normal deployment zones. small difference and either would work better than the existing method...for single player campaign games.

K.


------------------
I'm sorry, but i never apologize.

Otokomi, why would it be cheating to have some of your forces march into the enemy's flank, or even his rear? Historically, this sort of thing happened all the time, especially when a given general divided his forces for the deliberate purpose of flanking a foe (ala Jackson's men at Chancellorsville) or by chance (AP Hill's men at Antietam). Given the necessary limitations of the game, why not rationalize your reinforcements as the later type? Troops, very often turned up in all sorts of places in the fog of war, especially cavalry. The reality of war, is that confusion is a constant companion of the soldier. The creation of such has been a tried & true tactic of all self-respecting commanders throughout the ages.

Let the ai control the reinforcements i say so u can fight side by side with it, imagine how much more it would add to the campaign game, i mean almost all pcs these days can do 3v3 at least, out of the solutions here i agree with the half map idea, but id like to fight alongside the ai, with it as my reinforcements.


Swooooosh

Just wondering,
CAN THE CURRENT REINFORCEMENT ISSUE BE solved in the following way?

Play 60 men per unit setting.

On big battles, switch to 120 setting so that you can merge your units.

Switch back to 60 men then attack.

That way, initially you can bring about twice as many men into the battlefield.

Sounds like cheating though.

-------------------
BTW, I still haven't purchased MI. So this is just my wild guess.

My motto: never eat a peach till it is fully ripen. Plus I don't really care about the "freshness" of a game.