Defender Advantage

[GhengisPawn]

With the Total War engine the possible uses for the terrain allow a defender to hold out against larger attacking armies. This is often seen in the SP portion of the game. This makes for excitiung and fairly realitic battles.
In real life an army mounts an attack because it feels it has the advantage, which is generally numerical. Other advantages may be technological, superior troops, or it simply has the initiative and thinks one more good push can do it. The defender is generaly defending because it is inferior with the amount or quality of troops. It is assinged an area to defend or it simply isn't a good time due to outside factors ie. weather, politics, supplies etc.
However in MP its mostly even teams with equal florins going at each other on a flat, featureless map. This makes it almost even except the defender still posses a small advantage that their ranged units are in place and firing as soon as the opposing force comes into range. What I am advocating is perhaps two on ones with equal florins on a defensivly oreintated map or maybe two on two with the defenders with much less florins. Something along these lines would really flesh out battles and make them more realistic.
Obviously bridge battles would almost certainly be out of the question but an entire host of other exciting options exist. Fair odds would need to be worked out prior to the game to ensure everyone is happy but I feel it would be worth while and interesting. Anyone who would like to give it a shot could e-mail me at FMJ75@mail.com or IM me at Lactas281. I can't host due to my firewall, also if we can get it to work we could put out a few films and maybe shake things up around here. Just for the record I'm not doing real well on the switch to MP and am 0-2 so I obviously I am not great.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The problem is it is very hard to judge the how much more money is fair...

[torsoboy]

Quote[/b] (GhengisPawn @ Nov. 22 2003,03:43)] In real life an army mounts an attack because it feels it has the advantage, which is generally numerical. Other advantages may be technological, superior troops, or it simply has the initiative and thinks one more good push can do it. The defender is generaly defending because it is inferior with the amount or quality of troops. It is assinged an area to defend or it simply isn't a good time due to outside factors ie. weather, politics, supplies etc.
However in MP its mostly even teams with equal florins going at each other on a flat, featureless map. This makes it almost even except the defender still posses a small advantage that their ranged units are in place and firing as soon as the opposing force comes into range.

I like your post, it was very thought out. Actually, I believe that its not that simple. Firepower and striking range factor in as well. When it comes to ranged units, firepower is the amount of damage projected onto an enemy unit, and striking range is the distance firepower can be utilized in. When both unit's striking ranges are unequal, firepower becomes less important. When striking ranges are equal, firepower becomes the decisive factor.

Suppose I have a unit of longbowmen facing a unit of archers. My striking range is greater than theirs - which means that if my longbowmen stay out of range all day, they will eventually shoot up everybody without getting hurt. The archers have to make a decision, do they close in so they can shoot back? Or do they move out of range to not get shot? Striking range is the factor that provokes reaction.

Firepower the decisive factor only when both firing units are in each other's striking range. Obviously, if I can shoot more arrows at you and receive less in the same amount of time, I will be the victor. If I shoot first, there will be less of you to shoot back. In a continuing trend, it is not hard to see who will win.

Your assumption is that striking ranges are equal, and firepower of the advancing party suffers because the defending party is already in place to shoot. Could it not be that the attackers have brought units that have greater striking range in play? I'd imagine that given enough time and ammunition, a battery of culverins could force the defenders to become the attackers.

[GhengisPawn]

That is true enough you made a lot of good points, I didn't make a complete list of advantages but those are definatly factors. But as for the attacking party possesing better range that is difficult and only a few options are availible. One obvious choice is english longbows which can outshoot most if not all other archers.

A second possibility is any mounted archer or crossbow not because the range is better(I don't think it is)but the mobility gives the attack the chance to flank and hit them before the generally superior foot archers can wheel around and fire.

As for using siege equipment that is a very cool idea but very risky. If the defender is a good march away its wasted or for the gunpowder weapons rain is a big factor in the usefullness.

Anyway while these are interesting considerations I am merely looking for some lopsided yet even battles. That seems strange but giving the opposing sides large advantages in different ways would make for an interesting battle and take full advantage of the engine. As for working out whats fair provided you play with regulars one could find that out and get a basic idea.

[ichi]

Quote[/b] ]However in MP its mostly even teams with equal florins going at each other on a flat, featureless map.

While some folks play steppes, many battles occur on gentle hills, in woods, in the rolling sands of the desert, and occasionally, steep-ass mountains.

Quote[/b] ] This makes it almost even except the defender still posses a small advantage that their ranged units are in place and firing as soon as the opposing force comes into range.

Yes, but this first shot effect is minor; random events, some skill (such as when to switch between close and loose formation) can make a big diff.

It is true that there are times when the elevation effect and first shot effect persist, even increase, with the attacker running out of ranged men and/or missiles sooner than the defender. But tired/exhausted pavs shoot very slowly, and by the time you rush the defender pavs rate of fire is quite low, and their numbers reduced, so that the effect is marginal (usually).

Quote[/b] ] What I am advocating is perhaps two on ones with equal florins on a defensivly oreintated map or maybe two on two with the defenders with much less florins. Something along these lines would really flesh out battles and make them more realistic.

OK, so you are the attackers, and the two of you split 15K florins. That means that each of you get 7.5K florins. Split amongst 16 units that means any one of your units is likely to have only minimal upgrades to valor etc. Unless you reduce the number of units you have a distinct disadvantage unit for unit.

But with 32 units I will have a very hard time preventing you from flanking me, unless I'm on hill in the corner, and even then its hard. The whole game (IMHO) is about flanking, and imposing the morale penalties flanking gives to your opponent.

On some hills I can see reduced defender florins, especially in siege battles. Generally the appropriate reduction is only a few thousand florin (15K per army reduced to 14K). In the end, I find this empty. If I win, I think it is because the opponent had a reduced florin. I rarely defend under the reduced florin concept.

After many battles I have come to the conclusion that once the battle starts the concept of attacker and defender go out the window.

Although some will sit on a hill, waiting, most players will disregard the role of attacker/defender. Once the fighting begins, its just war.

And although I might lose a lot, that feeling of climbing a hill past an army of equal might is one of the best I can get from playing this damn game. Get in a game with Critter, my RW mate, and find out for yourself 'the joy of fighting uphill'.

ichi